17 Md. App. 376 - Collins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if he has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed or attempted and that such person has committed or attempted to commit a felony whether or not in his presence or view.’ Code, Art. 27, § 594 B (c). It is the existence of probable cause at the time of the arrest which is the measure of the legality of the arrest. Evans v. State, 11 Md. App. 451 . Probable cause may be based on information collectively within the knowledge of the police. Hebron v. State, 13 Md. App. 134 . So even when an officer acting on a direction to arrest was personally without sufficient probable cause to justify the arrest, it may be shown that information within the knowledge of the police team constituted probable cause. Thompson v. State, 15 Md. App. 335 . In such case, of course, the State is required to produce the evidence on which the officers initiating the arrest acted. Id. The statute here considered is declaratory of the common law rules of arrest without a warrant, and it does not affect the established definition of probable cause, Rife v. State, 9 Md. App. 658 , which has the same meaning it had under the common law, Wescott v. State, 11 Md. App. 305 . The rule of probable cause is a non-technical conception of a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, requiring less evidence for such belief than would justify conviction, but more evidence than that which would arouse mere suspicion. Cuffia v. State, 14 Md. App. 52”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 18 Md. App. 150 - Carter v. State · 38 Md. App. 160 - Hutchinson v. State

2. “Our holding that the arrest warrant was invalid, and the arrest, as made under its authority, was illegal, does not end our inquiry ... It is the existence of probable cause at the time of the arrest which is the measure of the legality of the arrest. Evans v. State, 11 Md.App. 451 [ 274 A.2d 653 ]. Probable cause may be based on information collectively within the knowledge of the police. Hebron v. State, 13 Md.App. 134 [ 281 A.2d 547 ]. So even when an officer acting on a direction to arrest was personally without sufficient probable cause to justify the arrest, it may be shown that information within the knowledge of the police team constituted probable cause. Thompson v. State, 15 Md.App. 335 [ 290 A.2d 565 ]. In such case, of course, the State is required to produce the evidence on which the officers initiating the arrest acted ... ... Although it is patent from the transcript of the trial on the merits that the conviction of Collins was predicated solely on the heroin recovered from his person, we shall remand the case for a new trial. The State may be able to show that there existed probable cause for a warrantless arrest of Collins ... In other words, on retrial the State has the opportunity to prove the legality of the arrest of Collins without reliance on the warrant, ... The legality of a warrantless arrest would be proved by showing that the police had facts and circumstances within their knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information thereof, sufficient to warra”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 118 Md. App. 317 - Wiegmann v. State

3. ““The same quantum of probable cause is required for a warrantless arrest, an arrest warrant, and a search warrant. The standards applicable to the factual basis supporting an arresting officer’s probable cause assessment at the time of a warrantless arrest and search incident are at least as stringent as the standards applied with respect to an issuing official’s assessment upon the issuance of an arrest warrant or a search warrant. United States v. Ventresca, supra; Aguilar v. Texas, supra; Jones v. United States, supra. See McCray v. Illinois, 386 U. S. 300 ; Dawson v. State, 11 Md. App. 694, 697, n. 1 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 19 Md. App. 226 - Wiebking v. State