149 Md. App. 598 - Carroll v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘What is absent is the absolute lack of material change in the facts or circumstances surrounding the execution of the warrant between the time it was issued and served. In other words, the officers serving the warrant had no “particularized knowledge.” Sergeant Bender’s testimony clearly demonstrated that the “particularized knowledge” was already known at the time they secured the warrant. No additional facts giving rise to a sudden emergency were shown other than what they previously had learned from the officers who secured the warrant, namely Detective Verderaime. ... Moreover, the record indicates that the officers did not witness any suspicious activities or events while surveilling Carroll’s residence that would lead them to believe that the climate had changed and that would give rise to exigent circumstances. Thus, the officers serving the warrant based their decision not to knock and announce on the information previously given to them by Detective Verderaime’ that was known at the time they secured the search warrant, rather than on exigent circumstances that may have arisen at the time they executed the warrant.... Under these circumstances, there was no evidence of exigent circumstances that could possibly eliminate the constitutional requirement to knock and announce.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davis v. State · State v. Carroll

2. ““Within the past seventy-two (72) hours your affiant ... was contacted by a known and reliable source. This source wished to provide your affiant with information regarding a person possessing marijuana and as well as illegally possessing several handguns. “The source stated to your affiant that within the aforementioned time period the source was inside the residence of 5738 Margrave Mews, Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. The source continued that Kevin Carroll lives at said residence. The source observed inside of Carroll’s residence and in Carroll’s possession five handguns. The source described the handguns as one Ruger, one .45 cal, one 9mm and two 380 semi-automatics. In addition, the source observed Carroll in possession of a quantity of marijuana. The source described Carroll as a white male, 5-10” tall, 180 pounds, brown hair, and approximately 23 years old. Moreover, the source directed your affiant to Carroll’s house and pointed Carroll out to your affiant. ‘Your affiant ... says that this source is reliable based on information and active cooperation by this source in other investigation [sic].... “The source has a basis of knowledge regarding handguns. The source explained to your affiant the difference between a revolver and a semi-automatic handgun. * * # * ‘Your affiant ... caused the records of the Howard County Police Department Central Records to be checked for Kevin Carroll. These records indicate that Kevin Carroll is a white male 5-10 tall, 170 pounds,”

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

3. ““In attempting to meet its burden, the State relied solely on the testimony of Sergeant Bender, a 15-year veteran, to establish that there were exigent circumstances that made it necessary to dispose of the knock and announce requirement. ‘The meaning of exigent circumstances is that the police are confronted with an emergency — circumstances so imminent that they present an urgent and compelling need for police action.’’ Stackhouse v. Stats, 298 Md. 203, 220 , 468 A.2d 333 (1983) (emphasis supplied). “Sergeant Bender testified that his concern about knocking and announcing was based on the criminal backgrounds of appellant and two known felons with whom he associated and the fact that the search was for an unspecified amount of marijuana and five handguns. The criminal records of Carroll and his alleged cohorts did not create a reasonable suspicion that they would act in a dangerous manner toward the police as contemplated in Richards and Wynn. In addition, we have stated before ‘that a reasonable belief that firearms may be within the residence, standing alone, is clearly insufficient to excuse a knock and announce requirement.’ Wynn, supra, 117 Md.App. at 167 , 699 A.2d 512 .””

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