Evans v. Interstate Rapid Transit Railway Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that cocaine found during the search incident to arrest should have been suppressed after the police seized the defendant without reasonable suspicion and he resisted arrest
• noting that purpose of law that resisting even illegal arrest or detention constitutes crime is to foster effective administration of justice, discourage self-help and provide for safety of police officers
• noting the importance we have placed upon whether the officer “used language indicating that compliance was not optional” in conducting a seizure analysis (quotation omitted)
• “The purpose behind the law that resisting even an illegal arrest or detention constitutes a crime is to foster the effective administration of justice, to discourage self-help and to provide for the safety of police officers.”
• “in order to protect important State constitutional rights, it is ‘logical and necessary’ to apply the exclusionary rule to situations where the initial seizure is unlawful and the defendant then violates [the law by resisting arrest]”
• “The purpose of the exclusionary rule is . . . to deter police misconduct, to redress the injury to the privacy of the victim of the unlawful search or seizure and to safeguard compliance with State constitutional protections.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).