2002 UT App 433 - State v. Krukowski’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We see the incentives differently. An officer with probable cause sufficient to obtain a search warrant would be foolish to enter the premises first in an unlawful manner. By doing so, he would risk suppression of all evidence on the premises, both seen and unseen, since his action would add to the normal burden of convincing a magistrate that there is probable cause the much more onerous burden of convincing a trial court that no information gained from the illegal entry affected either the law enforcement officers’ decision to seek a warrant or the magistrate’s decision to grant it. Nor would the officer without sufficient probable cause to obtain a search warrant have any added incentive to conduct an unlawful entry, since whatever he finds cannot be used to establish probable cause before a magistrate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Krukowski

2. “Police officers are obligated to demonstrate candor when seeking search warrants and failure to [fully disclose any conduct related to the search warrant request] to a magistrate may legiti mately call into question [the] officer[s'] credibility.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 UT App 389 - State v. Dable

3. “determine, independently, how, or if, the prior conduct impacts a probable cause determination.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 UT App 389 - State v. Dable