State v. Hanley’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. ““The drugs introduced into evidence did not derive from the monitoring and recording that occurred. The record .indicates that the law enforcement officials obtained the drugs through an informant, not through monitoring and recording. The monitoring and recording were incidental to, not the cause of, the ‘seizure of the drugs.’ The informant was the independent source of the information concerning the transaction of the drugs themselves, and the fact that the monitoring and recording occurred does not affect the admissibility of the evidence. In a recent case, State v. Ribera (1979), 183 Mont. 1 , 597 P.2d 1164, 1169 , this Court recognized and discussed the question that must be answered when an illegal seizure is alleged — that is, whether the initial illegality was a cause in fact of the discovery of the evidence. In that case, we cited Wong Sun v. United States (1963), 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 . Here the monitoring and recording was not a cause of the discovery of the evidence; therefore, the exclusionary rule does not apply even if the monitoring and recording were to be deemed unlawful. The drugs were properly admitted by the District Court.” State v. Hanley, supra, 608 P.2d at 110 , 37 St.Rep. at 435.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Schwartz · State v. Bassett

2. ““The general rule is that it is impermissible for police officers to intercept, transmit or record private conversations; however, if one of the parties to the conversation consents, even an informer, such actions are legal. People v. Patrick (1973), 46 Mich.App. 678 , 208 N.W.2d 604 ; United States v. Mendoza (U.S.C.A. 5th, 1978), 574 F.2d 1373 , rehearing denied 579 F.2d 644 . This is true as long as the will of the consenting party has not been subjected to overbearing pressure from the authorities.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Allen · State v. Morse

3. ““(1) criminal intent or design originating in the mind of the police officer or informer; (2) absence of criminal intent or design originating in the mind of the accused; (3) luring or inducing the accused into committing a crime he had no intention of committing. See State v. Grenfell (1977), 172 Mont. 345 , 564 P.2d 171 ; State ex rel. Hamlin v. District Court (1973), 163 Mont. 16 , 515 P.2d 74 ; State v. Karathanos, supra.””

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