People v. Avery’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[When authority is desired to search a ... particular room or rooms within a multiple-occupaney structure, the warrant must sufficiently describe the ... subunit to be searched, either by number or other designation, or by the name of the tenant or occupant; and where the warrant merely describes the entire multiple-occupancy structure by street address only, without reference to the particular dwelling unit or units sought to be searched, it is constitutionally insufficient and the evidence seized pursuant to such a warrant will be suppressed upon proper motion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Maes · People v. Martinez

2. “"Immediately apparent from a reading of these constitutional provisions are the requirements that the house or home to be searched must be particularly described or described as near as may be. It is difficult to lay down any test as to the sufficiency of a description which can invariably be applied to all situations and all circumstances. However, certain overriding considerations have evolved which may generally control and guide the magistrate in issuing the warrant, depending upon the nature and character of the place to be searched. A basic consideration is that general or blanket searches are forbidden, such being the very evil sought to be protected against by the adoption of the constitutional provisions against unreasonable searches and seizures."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Maes

3. ““The courts are generally agreed that where a structure is divided into several occupancy units, or is a multi-unit dwelling, and there is no common occupancy of the entire structure by all of the tenants, a search warrant which merely describes or identifies the larger multiple-occupancy structure and not the particular subunits to be searched is insufficient to meet the constitutional requirements of particularity of description.” 173 Colo, at 319, 478 P.2d at 312 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Myrick