State v. Arpin’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 2002 · most notably State v. Shifflett (1986), State v. Ostroski (1986)
30 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Franks v. Delaware · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Johnson v. United States
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In reviewing a search warrant affidavit the court "must ascertain whether the facts in the affidavit are sufficient to justify an independent determination by a neutral and detached issuing judge that the necessary probable cause exists for the issuance of the warrant. State v. Williams, 169 Conn. 322 , 326 , 363 A.2d 72 (1975); State v. Rose, 168 Conn. 623 -627-28, 362 A.2d 813 (1975); State v. Allen, 155 Conn. 385 , 391 , 232 A.2d 315 (1967)." State v. DeChamplain, 179 Conn. 522 , 527-28 , 427 A.2d 1338 (1980); see State v. Arpin, 188 Conn. 183 , 193 , 448 A.2d 1334 (1982). "Probable cause to search exists if: (1) there is probable cause to believe that the particular items sought to be seized are connected with criminal activity or will assist in a particular apprehension or conviction. . , and (2) there is probable cause to believe that the items sought to be seized will be found in the place to be searched."(Emphasis in original; citations omitted.) State v. DeChamplain, supra, 528-29 ; see State v. Arpin, supra. The reviewing court may consider only the information that was actually before the issuing judge at the time he or she signed the warrant. Aguilar v, Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 109 n. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Girodenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480 , 486 , 78 S.Ct. 1245 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1503 (1958); State v. Jackson, 162 Conn. 440 , 443 , 294 A.2d 517 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 870 , 93 S.Ct. 198 , 34 L.Ed.2d 121 (1972).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“must ascertain whether the facts in the affidavit are sufficient to justify an independent determination by a neutral and detached issuing judge that the necessary probable cause exists for the issuance of the warrant. State v. Williams, 169 Conn. 322 , 326 , 363 A.2d 72 (1975); State v. Rose, 168 Conn. 623 -627-28, 362 A.2d 813 (1975); State v. Allen, 155 Conn. 385 , 391 , 232 A.2d 315 (1967).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.