12 Va. App. 179 - Boyd v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably 19 Va. App. 671 - Alexander v. Commonwealth (1995), 23 Va. App. 137 - Ford v. City of Newport News (1996)
40 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 · Franks v. Delaware · Aguilar v. Texas · Brinegar v. United States · Spinelli 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where the basis for concluding that probable cause exists rests upon information provided by an informer, one focus of the inquiry must be upon whether [a] magistrate could determine the informer’s honesty, veracity, and basis of knowledge. Probable cause to issue a search warrant will be found lacking where the affidavit fails to establish reasonably and objectively that the informer is to be believed. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the rigid two-step analysis known as the Aguilar-Spinelli test is no longer required when deciding whether information provided by an informer establishes probable cause; rather, courts should utilize the more “fluid” totality-of-the-circumstances approach. The Aguilar-Spinelli approach had courts analyzing separately and independently the questions whether the informer was a person worthy of belief and whether the basis for his or her knowledge was reliable. The Gates approach, instead, requires that an issuing magistrate consider all factors and their interrelation to one another in deciding whether there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[b]ased upon the personal data furnished about the informer, the disclosure that the informer had provided the officer sufficient personal information from which he could be identified, the allegation that the informer had personally observed the drugs and criminal activity, and the allegation that the officers had verified the accuracy of the informer’s information concerning the suspect’s activities and his living arrangements, ... that a substantial basis existed for the magistrate to have found probable cause to issue the [search] warrant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““[a]n informant’s ‘veracity,’ ‘reliability,’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ are all highly relevant in determining the value of his report ... [but] should [not] be understood as entirely separate and independent requirements to be rigidly exacted in every case---- Rather ... they should be understood simply as closely intertwined issues that may usefully illuminate the commonsense, practical question whether there is ‘probable cause’ to believe that contraband or evidence is located in a particular place.””
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.