159 Md. App. 354 - State v. Cabral’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “confuse[s] probable cause with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If a trained drug dog has the ability to detect the presence of drugs that are no longer physically present in the vehicle or container, but were present perhaps as long as 72 hours prior to the alert, such an ability serves to strengthen the argument that the dog has a superior sense of smell on which to rely to support a finding of probable cause. The possibility that the contraband may no longer be present in the vehicle does not compel the finding that there is no probable cause; for purposes of the probable cause analysis, we are concerned with probability, not certainty. The issue of a possible alert to a residual odor is a factor to be considered by the trial court, but it is not dispositive.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Yeoumans · 170 Md. App. 211 - State v. Ofori

2. “A warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. In general, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement is premised upon the exigencies associated with the mobility of a vehicle, and the diminished expectation of privacy with regard to a vehicle.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Md. App. 75 - Daniels v. State · 198 Md. App. 1 - Fair v. State

3. “Under that rule, sometimes referred to as the Original Document Rule, the best evidence of the contents of a writing is deemed to be the writing itself. Oral testimony or other secondary evidence of the terms of the writing may not be offered as a substitute for the original document itself unless the proponent can demonstrate an adequate reason for the non-production of the original. Instructive in this regard is McCormick, Law of Evidence (1st ed., 1954), Ch. 23, “The Requirement of the Production of the Original Writing as the ‘Best Evidence,”’ § 201, “Excuses for Non-production of the Original Writing—(a) Loss or Destruction,” p. 413: “The professed purpose of the production of documents rule being to secure, not the writing at all hazards, but the best obtainable evidence of its contents, if the document cannot as a practical matter be produced, because of its loss or destruction, the production of the original is excused and other evidence of its contents is received____ Loss or destruction may sometimes be provable by direct evidence but more often the only available method is circumstantial, usually by proof of search for the document and inability to secure it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 204 Md. App. 327 - Gordon v. State