110 Wash. 2d 706 - State v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably 123 Wash. 2d 173 - State v. Young (1994), Detention of Petersen v. State (2002)
52 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 Illinois v. Gates · Katz v. United States · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. As we have interpreted Const, art. 1, § 7, that provision forbids police searches of private homes except when probable cause exists and a warrant has issued. See, e.g., State v. Huft, 106 Wn.2d 206, 209 , 720 P.2d 838 (1986). When police suspicions of illegal activity originate in an informant's tip, probable cause is tested against the standards described in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 , 89 S. Ct. 584 (1969) and Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 , 84 S. Ct. 1509 (1964). The”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“holds that probable cause will exist only if the informant's basis of knowledge and veracity have been demonstrated or if the substance of the tip has been verified by independent [police] investigation. Huft , at 209-10; State v. Jackson, 102 Wn.2d 432, 436-38 , 688 P.2d 136 (1984). Corroborating evidence offered to remedy a deficiency in either prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When adjudging the validity of a search warrant, we consider only the information that was brought to the attention of the issuing judge or magistrate at the time the warrant was requested.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.