State v. Gonzalez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 20 state decisions

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We also note that citizens are not without protection in the absence of a formal probable cause hearing. We assume that most police officers perform their duties honestly, conscientiously, and well. Part of that job includes the duty not to issue citations for violations unless the officer has probable cause.... By signing the statements on the complaint that there are "just and reasonable grounds to believe that the person named above committed the offense(s) herein set forth [contrary] to law," the officer so attests. [ 114 N.J. at 601 , 556 A. 2d 323 ] .... ... When a warrant is issued for a person's arrest, it is of course necessary for a judge, clerk, or deputy clerk to determine if there is probable cause that the particular suspect has committed the offense.... Although under the circumstances a police officer may arrest without a warrant, ... if the arrested person is to be detained for any significant amount of time, a determination of probable cause must be made.... Without the risk of detention, a suspect's interests in liberty and freedom from unreasonable prosecution are still paramount, but the procedures required to protect those interests need not be as extreme or absolute, because the threat to those interests is not as great. Determining what process is due necessitates an analysis of the underlying factors and circumstances, including not only the threat to a suspect's liberty but also the hindrance of law enforcement the process would create. [ Id. at 603-”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 248 N.J. Super. 189 - State v. Kenison

2. “The Appellate Division has held that when a private citizen files a complaint in a matter involving a non-traffic municipal offense, a summons may not issue unless there is a finding of probable cause by a judge, clerk or deputy clerk. State v. Ross, 189 N.J. Super. 67, 74 [ 458 A. 2d 1299 ] (App.Div. 1983). In Ross, neighbors of the defendant, disturbed by her dogs barking late at night, filed complaints charging her with violating the anti-noise ordinance, and themselves signed the summonses. Id. at 70-71 [ 458 A. 2d 1299 ]. The court found the issuance of the summonses by the complaining witnesses to constitute "so egregious a violation of the underlying principles of proper practice as to require the reversal of both convictions". Id. at 72 [ 458 A. 2d 1299 ]. In State v. Salzman, 228 N.J. Super. 109 [ 549 A. 2d 46 ] (App.Div. 1987), the court found that a probable cause hearing was also necessary for a complaint signed by a police officer when a summons had already been issued for the violation of an anti-noise ordinance. [ Id. at 601, 556 A. 2d 323 ]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 248 N.J. Super. 189 - State v. Kenison

3. “the complaint shall be a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged made upon oath before a judge or other person empowered by law to take complaints”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 248 N.J. Super. 189 - State v. Kenison