16 Md. App. 546 - King v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ [T]he strictures of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 , and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 , ‘are aimed primarily at unnamed police ‘informers’ rather than at that broad class of secondary sources who are the victims of crime, the disinterested witnesses of crime, other disinterested civilian sources of information or other law enforcement officers. The members of this broad class are generally, but not universally, named. They are not from the criminal milieu.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mobley and King v. State · 77 Md. App. 477 - Green v. State

2. “The warrantless search of an automobile, under appropriate circumstances, is a long recognized exception to a fundamental proposition. That proposition is that “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment - subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 [1967]; Brown v. State, 15 Md. App. 584, 586 , 292 A.2d 762 [1972]. The “automobile exception” was specifically established in 1924, Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 [1925], and it has been well delineated, Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 [1970]; Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 458-464 [1971]. The well-delineated preconditions to its reasonable invocation are 1) probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of crime and 2) exigent circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Girouard

3. “In measuring this unnamed and disinterested witness against the standard of Aguilar , it is obvious that Officer Lucas knew absolutely nothing about his inherent credi bility — his integrity — his reputation or his status as a truth-speaker. His demonstrable “credibility” was “absolute zero.” The “veracity” prong of Aguilar’s “two-pronged test” is, however, significantly phrased in the disjunctive. Even knowing nothing about the inherent “credibility” of a source of information, we may yet inquire, “Was the information furnished under circumstances giving reasonable assurances of trustworthiness?” If so, the information is “reliable,” notwithstanding our total ignorance as to its source’s “credibility.” We agree with the court’s analysis in King, supra. In the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Decano