State v. Valenzuela’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 51 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Stale probable cause, so called, is probable cause that would have justified a warrant at some earlier moment that has already passed by the time the warrant is sought. "There is not, however, any dispositive significance in the mere fact that some information offered to demonstrate probable cause may be called stale, in the sense that it concerns events that occurred well before the date of the application for the warrant. If such past fact contributes to an inference that probable cause exists at the time of the application, its age is no taint."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Jones · State v. Multaler

2. “Article 19 protects a person’s “papers” from all unreasonable searches and seizures. “Papers” as tangible objects, however, have little or no intrinsic value. The value of “papers” rests in the content of the information contained in them. The mere advance in technology from paper as the medium for the flow of information to, for example, telephonic communications should not alter the protective force of article 19. Similarly, article 19 should not be limited to protections against the intrusive capabilities of the government at the time of the adoption of article 19. Rather, the areas of protected privacy must be examined and determined on a case by case basis in light of the technology available to the government at any given time. The protected rights, of necessity, become more sharply defined as science and technology broaden the scope of governmental power. In the end, I see no functional difference between government officials searching for and seizing a person’s papers, in the course of an investigation without the benefit of a warrant based on probable cause, and their monitoring the communicative activities of a citizen without the burden of similar requirements.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Gubitosi

3. “[Wjhatever else neutrality and detachment might entail, it is clear that they require severance and disengagement from activities of law enforcement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United States v. Ramirez