State v. Laflin

How courts have described this case

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

• “We hold that V.R.Cr.P. 3 was designed to both codify and enhance protections conferred by the Fourth Amendment, and that therefore the evidence seized should be suppressed under the exclusionary rule doctrine.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Chapman
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2002-04-12· cited 26×
• State v. Forcier
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1994-05-20· cited 14×
• State v. Robinson
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1996-07-26· cited 7×
• State v. Barker
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1999-12-17· cited 6×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Davis
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1983-06-29· cited 279×
• State v. Valdez
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1977-03-24· cited 229×
• State v. Ball
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1962-03-07· cited 27×
• State v. LeBlanc
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1987-12-24· cited 17×
• State v. Meunier
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1979-11-05· cited 15×
• Gossett v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1966-07-20· cited 14×