Washington Supreme Court· 2/7/2019

State v. Mayfield

Citations

434 P.3d 58
192 Wash. 2d 871

How courts have described this case

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

stating, “Article I, section 7 and its corresponding exclusionary rule provide uniquely heightened privacy protections.”
listing rejected federal exceptions and noting that Washington’s exclusionary rule has “no exceptions that rely on speculation, the likelihood of deterrence, or the reasonableness of official misconduct”
providing a thorough history of the exclusionary rule in Washington State
State bears burden of proving that evidence is admissible under attenuation doctrine where evidence was obtained in violation of article I, § 7
attenuation requires “an unforeseeable intervening act genuinely severs the causal connection between official misconduct and the discovery of evidence” for unlawfully obtained evidence to escape suppression
evidence obtained after unconstitutional police conduct will not be suppressed if the connection between the unconstitutional conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Johnson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.