11 Md. App. 55 - Buckner v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably Stewart v. State (1978), 17 Md. App. 399 - Hignut v. State (1973)
47 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Chimel v. California · Spinelli v. United States · United States v. Ventresca · Draper v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a search warrant is challenged, the lower court and the appellate court when the determination of the lower court is before it on appeal, must look for probable cause only in the affidavit itself and may not go outside it. Scarborough v. State, 3 Md. App. 208 . However the affidavit should be interpreted in a commonsense and not in a hypertechnical manner, and the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants. Frey v. State, 3 Md. App. 38, 45-46 , summarizing the observations in United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102 . But, as we noted in Frey , this is not to say that probable cause can be made out by affidavits which are purely conclusory, stating only the affiant’s or an informer’s belief that probable cause exists. See Hall v. State, 5 Md. App. 394 . In short, there are established propositions lately specifically affirmed in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 , 419 and noted by us in Price v. State, 7 Md. App. 131 , 137: 1) the standard of probable cause is only the probability and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity; 2) affidavits of probable cause are tested by much less rigorous standards than those governing the admissibility of evidence at trial; 3) issuing judges are not to be confined to niggardly limitations or by restrictions on the use of their common sense in judging probable cause; 4) the determination of probable cause by the issuing judge should be paid great def”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.