The Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow evidence from an illegal stop in Utah v. Strieff has gotten the most press for Justice Sotomayor’s scathing dissent. Here from scotusblog is a good analysis of the practical application of rules in the decision:

“The opinion applies the factors from 1975’s Brown v. Illinois and concludes that suppression is unwarranted. Some will complain about how the Court applied those factors – I will do that myself below – but it’s worth pausing to note that the majority opinion did not overturn or substantially revise Wong Sun v. United States. This case instead reconciles the pre-2000 case law on the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine (such as Wong Sun and Brown) with post-2000 case law (such as Hudson v. Michigan and Davis v. United States). According to today’s opinion, all of the cases are ultimately about cost-benefit weighing.”