13 Md. App. 688 - Kates v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2006
10 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 Ker v. State of California · United States v. Harris · Henson v. State · 11 Md. App. 694 - Dawson v. State · 10 Md. App. 389 - Vuitch v. State
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is well settled that the law proscribes such unannounced searches. This rule is not, however, without qualification or exception. As noted in Henson v. State, 236 Md. 518 [ 204 A.2d 516 ], an announcement and demand are not requisite where the facts made it evident that the officers’ purpose is known or where such announcement and demand would likely frustrate the search, increase the peril of the searching officers, or permit the destruction of evidence. See also Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 [ 83 S.Ct. 1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 ]; Berigan v. State, 2 Md.App. 666 [ 236 A.2d 743 (1968)]. We have held that narcotics cases may fall within the exception above noted “for if opportunity is given all evidence easily may be destroyed during the time required to give notice, demand admittance and accept communication of denial of entry.” Waugh v. State, 3 Md.App. 379 [ 239 A.2d 596 ], citing Henson v. State, supra. We think such a rationale equally applicable in gambling and/or lottery cases. See United States [ex rel. Manduchi] v. Tracy, 350 F.2d 658 (3rd Cir.[1965]).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The claim that the evidence seized was inadmissible because the police officers executing the search warrant did not advise those within that they had such a warrant and demand admittance, but broke in forcibly without notice, is an extension of the old rule that a peace officer seeking to arrest an individual who is in a house, either by authority of an arrest warrant or under circumstances making a warrant unnecessary, must give proper notice of his purpose and authority and be denied admittance before he can use force to break and enter.... ❖ ❖ * However, the rule has often been made subject to qualifications and exceptions even in states with statutes, so that by judicial decision announcement and demand are not a requisite where the facts make it evident the officers’ purpose is known or where they would frustrate the arrest, increase the peril of the arresting officer or permit the destruction of evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f the exigencies and practicalities of the situation demand entry without prior notice and demand, force may be used to break and enter under authority of a valid search warrant. Practicalities and exigencies in searches for narcotics require the element of surprise entry, for if opportunity is given all evidence easily may be destroyed during the time required to give notice, demand admittance and accept communication of denial of entry.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.