192 Md. App. 504 - Murphy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the officers were not placed at risk of being 'ambushed' by another suspect on the premises, and there was no rationale for performing a 'protective sweep [of the apartment]. ' " 192 Md. App. at 513 -14 , 995 A.2d 783 (emphasis supplied). Judge Graeff surveyed the national caselaw, federal and state, and found that seven United States Courts of Appeal had unanimously held that the locus of the arrest, just outside rather than inside the residence, would not preclude a protective sweep. She quoted with approval United States v. Lawlor , 406 F.3d 37 , 42 (1st Cir. 2005) : We think that an arrest that occurs just outside the home can pose an equally serious threat to arresting officers as one that occurs in the home. Therefore, we accept the position that a protective sweep may be conducted following an arrest that takes place just outside the home if sufficient facts exist that would warrant a reasonably prudent officer to fear that the area in question could harbor an individual posing a threat to those at the scene. 192 Md. App. at 514 -15 , 995 A.2d 783 (emphasis supplied). See also United States v. Wilson , 306 F.3d 231 , 239 (5th Cir. 2002) ("[N]othing but an open door stood between the officers ... and harm's way.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 239 Md. App. 697 - Groves v. State

2. “In reviewing a circuit court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence, “we view the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing, and the inferences fairly deducible therefrom, in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed on the motion.” We accept “[t]he factual findings of the suppression court and its conclusions regarding the credibility of testimony ... unless clearly erroneous.” With respect to the ultimate issue of constitutionality, however, we “make our own independent constitutional appraisal ‘by reviewing the law and applying it to the facts of the present case.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 205 Md. App. 607 - Kamara v. State

3. “We agree with the consensus of other courts that the reasonableness of a protective sweep of a residence incident to arrest does not turn on whether the arrest occurred inside or outside the residence. An arrest that occurs outside a residence can pose a threat to arresting officers that is equally as serious as when the arrest occurs inside the residence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 239 Md. App. 697 - Groves v. State