136 Md. App. 458 - Herbert v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A second strong incentive for searching with warrants is the almost “fail-safe” security of being able to fall back on the “good faith” exception to the Exclusionary Rule. Even when the warrant is bad, the mere exercise of having obtained it mil salvage all but the rarest and most outrageous of warranted searches. The “good faith” exception, by contrast, is almost universally unavailable in warrantless contexts. Under the Sheppardr-Leon “good faith” exception to the Exclusionary Rule, it is hard for the State to lose a suppression hearing. It is equally hard to figure out why the State would not do everything in its power to exploit that overwhelming advantage whenever possible.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 232 Md. App. 510 - Joppy v. State · 147 Md. App. 1 - Ashford v. State

2. “Over the course of decades, the Supreme Court has not been content to deliver to American prosecutors and American police a schoolmarmish civics lesson or lecture on investiga tive restraint. It has, in an exercise of shrewd practicality, provided prosecutors and police with significant incentives for searching and seizing via the favored or preferred modality, to wit, with judicially issued warrants. Conversely, it has strewn the field with at times vexing disincentives for operating in the disfavored or non-preferred modality, to wit, warrantlessly.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson · 146 Md. App. 327 - Graham v. State

3. “As a general rule, the moving party on any proposition, civil or criminal, has both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 193 Md. App. 687 - Epps v. State · State v. Alexander