121 Md. App. 345 - Hardy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[The Kennison court, in its majority opinion,] determined that an anonymous tip that informed the police that Kennison had four pounds of marijuana in the trunk of her vehicle was not sufficient to justify an investigative stop. In Kennison , the informant had described the type of vehicle, the license plate number, and the suspect’s place of employment. Further, the police were told that Kennison would leave work at 3:00 p.m., return to her residence, and then leave to make marijuana deliveries. Undercover police officers were dispatched to the place of employment and observed a woman enter the car in question at the appointed hour. The police also set up surveillance of Kennison’s residence, and observed Kennison as she arrived at her home. About two hours later, the police saw Kennison leave her residence and, after following her for less than a mile, the police “pulled her over.” When Kennisqn signed a consent to search form, the police recovered four pounds of marijuana from the trunk of her vehicle. Nevertheless, applying New Hampshire constitutional law, the court concluded that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the marijuana. In the majority’s view, “the police merely corroborated mundane, innocent facts easily available to co-workers or friends, or to persons who might wish to harass or embarrass another.” Kennison, 590 A.2d at 1101 . With respect to the quality of information provided by the anonymous informant, the court reasoned t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 133 Md. App. 654 - Dixon v. State

2. “We think it also important that, as in [Illinois v.[ Gates, “the anonymous [tip] contained a range of details relating not just to easily obtained facts and conditions existing at the time of the tip, but to future actions of third parties ordinarily not easily predicted.” ... The fact that the officers found a car precisely matching the caller’s description in front of the 235 building is an example of the former. Anyone could have “predicted” that fact because it was a condition presumably existing at the time of the call. What was important was the caller’s ability to predict respondent’s future behavior, because it demonstrated inside information — a special familiarity with respondent’s affairs. The general public would have had no way of knowing that respondent would shortly leave the building, get in the described car, and drive the most direct route to Dobey’s Motel. Because only a small number of people are generally privy to an individual’s itinerary, it is reasonable for police to believe that a person with access to such information is likely to also have access to reliable information about that individual’s illegal activities____When significant aspects of the caller’s predictions were verified, there was reason to believe not only that the caller was honest but also that he was well informed, at least well enough to justify the stop.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 173 Md. App. 94 - Massey v. State

3. “The linchpin of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. “Reasonableness is determined by balancing ‘the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against [the] promotion of legitimate governmental interests.’ ” [Internal citations omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 132 Md. App. 250 - Brown v. State