2 Md. App. 513 - Salmon v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently January 2002 · most notably 24 Md. App. 128 - Andresen v. State (1975), State v. De Simone (1972)
62 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 Mapp v. Ohio · Jones v. United States · Schmerber v. State of California · Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco · See v. City of Seattle
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As the search warrant is issued for the basic purpose of making a search, the probable cause necessary to support its issuance requires a proper showing not only that a crime has been or is being committed, but also that the evidence of the crime is upon the person or within the place or thing to be searched. Salmon v. State, [2 Md. App. 513, 519, 235 A. 2d 758 (1967)]. See also Kist v. State, 4 Md. App. 282 ; Frey v. State, 3 Md. App. 38 .” Id. at 488-89.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whenever it be made to appear to any judge ... of any of the circuit courts in the counties of this State ... by a written application signed and sworn to by the applicant, accompanied by an affidavit or affidavits containing facts within the personal knowledge of the affiant or affiants, that there is probable cause, the basis of which shall be set forth in said affidavit or affidavits, to believe that . . . any property subject to seizure under the criminal laws of the State is situated or located on the person of any such individual . . . then such judge may forthwith issue a search warrant directed to any duly constituted policeman, or police officer authorizing him to search such suspected individual . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.