138 Md. App. 300 - Collins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Officer Carl Hook [of the Hagerstown Police Department] was the only witness. He testified that he was advised by another officer [Officer David Long] to meet with two persons in the business of arranging bail bonds, Tanya Baer and Donna Morris. They advised him that they wanted to apprehend a ^wanted subject,’ Dale Michael Estep, and that he had been seen going into 126 East Avenue in Hagerstown. Officer Hook accompanied the bail bond agents to that residence. He explained that he was performing a ‘service to stand by,’ which meant that he was not to intervene unless there was a criminal matter that took place. He testified that such service was routinely provided under the circumstances present here.[ 1 ] Officer Hook had no information other than that supplied to him by the bail bond agents. “The residence at 126 East Avenue was an apartment house containing four apartments. There was a porch on the front of the residence with an entrance from the porch to the apartment in question. “After Officer Hook and the two agents arrived at the entrance to the apartment, Officer Hook knocked on the door. The door was opened by appellant, who came out and closed the door behind him. Officer Hook stated that they were there for a ‘wanted subject’ and asked for permission to come in to check the residence. Appellant advised that Estep was not there, that he had not seen him for two weeks, and refused entry into the residence. Ms. Baer stated ”

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

2. ““Miller is instructive because it discerned from the case law the following test to determine state action: did the police officer (1) instigate, (2) participate, or (3) knowingly acquiesce in the private party’s search in conjunction with an intent by the private party to further the private party’s own ends, as opposed to an intent to assist law enforcement.””

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