122 Md. App. 413 - Dyson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It was at 11 A.M. on July 2, 1996 when [Sergeant Lyle Long of the St. Mary’s County Sheriffs Department] received the critical telephone call from a confidential informant. A key component of the probable cause in this case was the probable reliability of that informant. It was not an anonymous informant but one with whom Sergeant Long had a previous working relationship. The informant had, moreover, what the case law calls “a good track record.” The informant had, while working with Sergeant Long, made a controlled buy from a private residence that led to the issuance of an earlier search and seizure warrant. The execution of that warrant, in turn, uncovered a substantial quantity of crack cocaine and resulted in a criminal conviction. Sergeant Long also carefully pointed out that he had never received information from the confidential informant that was found to be false or misleading. On another occasion, Sergeant Long had interviewed the informant and established the informant’s knowledge as to the narcotics traffic generally and as to narcotics activity in St. Mary’s County specifically. The informant told Sergeant Long that the [defendant, Kevin Dyson,] was in the New York City area on that day (July 2) for the purpose of purchasing cocaine. He further reported to Sergeant Long that [Dyson] would be leaving New York at 11 A.M. that morning and would be returning to St. Mary’s County with the cocaine. He informed the Sergeant that [Dyson] was operating a red Toyota with ”

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

2. “showing that informant had first-hand knowledge and was not passing on some mere generalized rumor”; officer was familiar with defendant as a supplier of cocaine and knew that defendant had recently had an accident with his car and therefore needed to find a substitute vehicle; officer verified that defendant had rented the specific car informant described; officer had "ample probable cause”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dixon v. State

3. “The actions of counsel in this regard, moreover, are binding on a defendant and are not sapped of vitality simply because the defendant has not directly or personally participated in the decision-making process.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 240 Md. App. 470 - Hogan v. State