Skip to main content

Hill v. State

Citations

  • 956 N.E.2d 174
  • 2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1847
  • 2011 WL 5059190

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that evidence obtained from an illegal search is “fruit of the poisonous tree,” and therefore, inadmissible in a court of law
  • holding that evidence obtained from an illegal search was “fruit of the poisonous tree” and therefore inadmissible
  • holding that a general concern that people carry weapons does not authorize a protective search for weapons under Terry
  • holding that evidence that is obtained from an illegal search is “fruit of the poisonous tree,” and therefore, inadmissible in a court of law
  • explaining that “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” bars evidence directly obtained or derivatively gained from unlawful search or seizure
  • holding there was insufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction without evidence obtained during an illegal pat-down search

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Najam, Riley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.