State v. Shaw’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'is to deter future unlawful police conduct' by denying the prosecution the spoils of constitutional violations.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Chisum · 443 N.J. Super. 605 - State of New Jersey v. Kason D. Hockett

2. “the product of the 'exploitation' of [the unconstitutional police action] or of a 'means sufficiently distinguishable' from the constitutional violation such that the 'taint' of the violation was 'purged.' " State v. Shaw , 213 N.J. 398 , 414, 64 A.3d 499 (2012) (quoting Hudson v. Michigan , 547 U.S. 586 , 592, 126 S.Ct. 2159 , 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006) ). Such evidence is admissible "when the connection between the unconstitutional police action and the secured evidence becomes 'so attenuated as to dissipate the taint' from the unlawful conduct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Interest of J.A.

3. “Because of the high price exacted by suppressing evidence, “the exclusionary rule is applied to those circumstances where its remedial objectives can best be achieved.” Thus, when law enforcement officials secure evidence that is sufficiently independent of the illegal conduct — evidence that is not tainted by the misdeed— then withholding evidence from the trier of fact is a cost that may not be justified by the exclusionary rule. [Ibid, (citations omitted).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. A-111-13 State v. Thomas Shannon(074315)