1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wis.2d
  4. 69 Wis.2d
  5. 69 Wis.2d 513 (1975)
 

STATE v. GUMS

No. State 183.

69 Wis.2d 513 (1975)

230 N.W.2d 813

STATE, Plaintiff in error, v. GUMS, Defendant in error.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Decided June 30, 1975.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

For the plaintiff in error there were briefs by Bronson C. La Follette, attorney general, and Robert D. Martinson and William L. Gansner, assistant attorneys general, and oral argument by Mr. Gansner.

For the defendant in error there was a brief and oral argument by Patrick R. Doyle of La Crosse.

ROBERT W. HANSEN, J.

The "exclusionary rule" is that, where constitutional guaranties have been invaded, derivative evidence cannot be introduced against an accused at trial.1 The rule has its critics.2 It is a sanction to deter future unlawful police conduct.3 Its purpose is to prevent, not to repair.4 However...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases