Legal Opinion

State v. Boll

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 4, 2002No. NonePublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ZINTER, Justice.

[¶ 1.] William James Boll was convicted of unauthorized manufacture of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) in violation of SDCL 22-42-2 and SDCL 22-42-5.1 He appeals contending that the trial court erred in deny*713ing his motion to suppress the evidence seized at his home and on his person. That evidence was seized pursuant to a search warrant. However, the affidavit supporting the warrant contained some information obtained from a prior illegal search. After redacting all information derived directly and indirectly…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Texas v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Nix v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. State v. FlippoWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State v. DeneuiSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Williams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
  4. State v. ChristensenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
  5. State v. SmithSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014

22 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