359 So. 2d 78 - State v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The rule which supports the views expressed here is not new. It was recognized in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920), almost sixty years ago. There it was said that facts learned as a result of information obtained in an illegal search do not become sacred and inaccessible by reason of such illegality, and that if knowledge of them is gained from an independent source, they may be proved like any others. Adhering to the views expressed in that case, courts in a number of cases have held or recognized that the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine excludes evidence obtained from or as a consequence of an unlawful search and seizure but that doctrine does not require the exclusion of such evidence when knowledge thereof can be attributed to an independent source. United States v. Avila, 227 F.Supp. 3 (D.C.Cal. 1963); State v. O'Bremski, 70 Wash.2d 425 , 423 P.2d 530 (1967); 43 A.L.R.3d 399 . See also this Court's decision in State v. Anderson, 358 So.2d 276 (La.1978).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 421 So. 2d 859 - State v. Roubique

2. “"... It is one thing to say that the State cannot make affirmative use of the objects unlawfully obtained. It is another to say that the State cannot use information obtained by witnesses at a time and place entirely unrelated to the unlawful search and seizure, when the information is not come by as a result of the unlawful search and seizure."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. James