Rhode Island General Laws
R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-19-25 (2026)
Illegally seized evidence inadmissible
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In the trial of any action in any court of this state, no evidence shall be admissible where the evidence shall have been procured by, through, or in consequence of any illegal search and seizure as prohibited in § 6 of article 1 of the constitution of the state of Rhode Island.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: State v. Dufour, 206 A.2d 82 (R.I. 1965).
State v. Dufour, 206 A.2d 82 (R.I. 1965). “6, of the state constitution and that evidence thus obtained is expressly declared to be inadmissible "In the trial of any action in any Court of this State * * *" by G.L. 1956, § 9-19-25. The motion to quash alleged that the officer who arrested defendant did not at such time…”
State v. Mattatall, 603 A.2d 1098 (R.I. 1992). “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-19-25, which provides: “In the trial of any action in any court of this state, no evidence shall be admissible where the same shall have been procured by, through or in consequence of any illegal search and seizure as prohibited in section 6 of…”
Barrett v. Barrett, 894 A.2d 891 (R.I. 2006). “Further, the codification of an exclusionary rule in this state, G.L.1956 § 9-19-25, that prohibits the introduction of illegally seized evidence, came as a legislative response to this Court's split decision in State v.”
State v. Spratt, 386 A.2d 1094 (R.I. 1978). “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §9-19-25, 3 our statutory exclusionary rule.”
State v. Steven B. Morris, 92 A.3d 920 (R.I. 2014). “We recognize that Rhode Island also has a statutory exclusionary rule embodied in G.L.1956 § 9-19-25. 17 This Court has, however, concluded that § 9-19-25 largely tracks the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment.”
State v. Musumeci, 717 A.2d 56 (R.I. 1998). “2d 123 (1955), the General Assembly enacted G.L.1956 § 9-19-25. This section, which prohibits the introduction of illegally seized evidence, was adopted a mere six weeks after Olynik , and a full six years before Mapp v.”
State v. Von Bulow, 475 A.2d 995 (R.I. 1984). “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 9-19-25 within only six weeks of the Olynik decision effectively reversed this result once and for all in Rhode Island.”
State v. Delaurier, 488 A.2d 688 (R.I. 1985). “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 9-19-25. By its own terms, § 9-19-25 applies only to trials, and a bail revocation hearing is in no sense a “trial.”
State v. Davis, 251 A.2d 394 (R.I. 1976). “In our opinion, this argument misconceives the purpose for which §11-19-24 was enacted and overlooks the provisions of §9-19-25 wherein the legislature specifically makes provision for the exclusion of evidence in criminal trials in this state when seized in violation of the…”
State v. Timms, 505 A.2d 1132 (R.I. 1986). “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-19-25: "In the trial of any action in any court of this state, no evidence shall be admissible where the same shall have been procured by, through or in consequence of any illegal search and seizure as prohibited in section 6 of article I of the…”
Bridges v. Superior Court, 396 A.2d 97 (R.I. 1978). “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §9-19-25, the statutory exclusionary rule, did not answer the question whether illegal evidence could be introduced at a probation revocation hearing because that statute, by its terms, prohibits the introduction of illegal evidence only “[i]n the trial…”
State v. Brennan, 526 A.2d 483 (R.I. 1987). “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-19-25. Timms, supra. These rules, which both bar the introduction of fruits of an unlawful arrest, see Wong Sun v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.