People v. Brethauer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

95 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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In dealing with probable cause, one deals with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. People v. Bustam · People v. Lindholm

2. “It is, of course, elementary and of no consequence that the police might have had additional information which could have provided a basis for the issuance of the warrant. Should the judge to whom application has been made for the issuance of a search warrant determine that the affidavit is insufficient, he can require that sworn testimony be offered to supplement the warrant or can demand that the affidavit be amended to disclose additional facts, if a search warrant is to be issued. Under our Constitution, the warrant can only be issued upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation which is reduced to writing. Colo.Const, art. II § 7. Moreover, Crim.P. 41(c) requires an affidavit to support a search warrant, which establishes the grounds for the issuance of the warrant, and demands that the affidavit be sworn to before the judge. Accordingly, the testimony taken would have to be reduced to writing and signed by the witness or witnesses that offered testimony, under oath, to supplement the affidavit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. People v. Fournier

3. ““Although an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant .. . the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed . . . was ‘credible’ or his information ‘reliable.’ Otherwise, ‘the inferences from the facts which lead to the complaint’ will be drawn not ‘by a neutral and detached magistrate,’ as the Constitution requires, but instead, by a police officer ‘engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime,’... or, as in this case, by an unidentified informant.” (Citations omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. People v. Peschong