State v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We decline to eviscerate the requirement that when a person’s residence is to be searched, the application must demonstrate the probability that the items to be seized will be found within it. The warrant requirement is the mechanism implementing the constitutional protection against the “chief evil” of the government physically invading the privacy and sanctity of a person’s home.... Moreover, this bedrock principle cannot be overcome by resorting solely to “common sense,” “practical considerations,” and “probability.” Facts stated in the application are also statutorily and constitutionally required before the magistrate is entitled to use these other intuitive approaches in making the totality of circumstances determination. Here, there were no facts included in the application for search warrant that implicated Graham’s home. Common sense, practical considerations and probabilities are not, therefore, enough. Rather, if the authorities had probable cause to search Graham’s home, then they were required under well-settled principles of search and seizure law to include facts supporting that conclusion within the four corners of the search warrant application and to ensure that the home was particularly designated as a place to be searched in the warrant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Bouch v. State

2. “¶ 72 Although the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures encompasses more than the home, the home, nonetheless, is historically the raison d'être for the constitutional protection. The people's protection against unreasonable search and seizure in their "houses" was drawn from the English common-law maxim "A man's home is his castle. " Minnesota v. Carter (1998), 525 U.S. 83, 94 , 119 S.Ct. 469 , 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (Scalia, J., concurring) (emphasis in original). "[E]very man's house is looked upon by the law to be his castle." 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 288 (1768). The home is the most sanctified of all "particular places."”

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

3. “At the risk of belaboring the obvious, private residences are places in which the individual normally expects privacy free of governmental intrusion not authorized by warrant, and that expectation is plainly one that society is prepared to recognize as justifiable. The fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is to protect the privacy and security of individuals and safeguard the sanctity of the home against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials.”

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