State v. Blood’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

61 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It has been held that the eye cannot commit a trespass condemned by the Fourth Amendment. (See, McDonald v. United States [1948], 335 U.S. 451 , 93 L.Ed. 153 , 69 S.Ct. 191 .) Observation of that which is in plain view is not a search. ( State v. Campbell [Mo. 1953], 262 S.W.2d 5 ; State v. Hawkins [1951], 362 Mo. 152, 240 S.W.2d 688 ; and State v. Harre [Mo. 1955], 280 S.W.2d 41 .)" 190 Kan. at 819 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Yates · State v. Doile

2. ““. . . An arrest without a warrant, to support an incidental search, must be made with probable cause. Probable cause exists if the facts and circumstances known to the officer warrant a prudent man’s believing that a crime has been committed at or before the time of arrest. . . .” (p. 477.)”

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

3. ““. . . It has been held that the eye cannot commit a trespass condemned by the Fourth Amendment. (See, McDonald v. United States [1948], 335 U. S. 451 , 93 L. Ed. 153 , 69 S. Ct. 191 .) Observation of that which is in plain view is not a search. (State v. Campbell [Mo. 1953], 262 S. W. 2d 5 ; State v. Hawkins, [1951], 362 Mo. 152 , 240 S. W. 2d 688 ; and State v. Harre [Mo. 1955], 280 S. W. 2d 41 .) “In Ellison v. United States [1953], 206 F. 2d 476 , the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, said: “'. . . Nor were they guilty of any impropriety in allowing their eyes to wander while they were waiting on the porch. The bottles and cigarettes were not covered or hidden, though it may have been necessary to bend over the porch rail to see them. There was no intrusion into appellant’s privacy. Nor did mere observation constitute a “search.” If an officer sees the fruits of crime — or what he has good reason to believe to be the fruits of crime — lying freely exposed on a suspect’s property, he is not required to look the other way, or disregard the evidence his senses bring him. Law enforcement is difficult enough, without requiring a police officer to free his mind of clues lying flatly before him.’ (p. 478.) “An officer lawfully on the premises or in a public place can always seize property which is open to his view, if he has reasonable cause to believe it is being kept or used in violation of the law. (Ellison v. United States, supra.) There is”

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