Legal Opinion

State v. Holland

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided June 3, 2003PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

VERNIERO, J.

This case implicates defendant’s right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures in a residential setting. We are called on to apply the “independent-source” rule, which “allows admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2508, 81 L.Ed.2d 377, 387 (1984). Although prior New Jersey decisions have cited the independent-source rule with varying elaboration, this case presents our first opportunity to articulate the rule’s…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  2. Brown v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. United States v. CalandraSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Nix v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. State v. SmithSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2012
  2. State v. WilsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2003
  3. State v. Nathan Shaw State v. Keon L. Bolden (078247) (Monmouth County and Statewide)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2019
  4. State v. AtwoodSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2018
  5. State v. FinesmithNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2009

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API