151 So. 2d 841 - McCain v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 1982
18 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 Longo v. State · 112 So. 2d 864 - Cameron v. State · 54 So. 2d 190 - Mixon v. State · 106 So. 2d 630 - Tribue v. State · 118 So. 2d 596 - Gispert 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`Probable cause' is the same, whether it is the basis of an affidavit for a search warrant or whether as the basis for a search without a warrant; and as to what qualifies as `probable cause' in either event has been aptly expressed by Judge Kanner of this Court in McCain v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 151 So.2d 841 , as follows (text 844): `In dealing with "probable cause" for search and seizure without a warrant, a court deals with probabilities which are not technical but which are factual and practical considerations of every day life upon which reasonable and prudent men act and not legal technicians. The essence of "probable cause" is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt; and the court in determining whether there was probable cause to make a search without a warrant must first determine sufficiency of knowledge by the searching officer by comparison to what a reasonable man, knowing all the facts which the searching officer knew, would have believed under all of the circumstances. Gispert v. State, Fla.App. 1960, 118 So.2d 596 , cert. denied, Fla. 1960, 122 So.2d 782 .'"”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““Since the immunity to unreasonable searches and seizures is a privilege personal to those whose rights thereunder have been infringed, they alone may invoke it against illegal searches and seizures. Thus one cannot complain of an illegal search and seizure of premises or property which he does not own, or lease, or of premises or property which he does not control, or lawfully occupy, or rightfully possess, or in which he has no interest or makes no claims. It follows, therefore, that one may not object to an illegal or unreasonable search of the property, premises, or possessions of another, if his own privacy is not unlawfully invaded. “. . . A passenger and a guest in an automobile have been denied the right to claim immunity.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Edwards“at the time of the search (she) owned or rightfully possessed or had a lawful interest in the (safe deposit box) searched.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.