State v. Rogahn’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. ““When a defendant alleges false or misleading statements have been made in the application for a search warrant, we address the issue under the standard set forth in [Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978)]. An affidavit in support of a search warrant must contain ‘truthful’ statements. Under Franks, this does not require every statement contained in the affidavit necessarily be correct, but rather requires the statement be truthful in the sense that the information put forth is believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true. A false statement under Franks is one that misleads a neutral and detached magistrate into believing the stated facts exist, and those facts in turn affect the magistrate’s evaluation of whether or not there is probable cause. That standard may also apply to statements that are deliberately false or misleading by omission. A Franks hearing is required only if: (1) a defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing, accompanied by an offer of proof, that false statements were made in support of a search warrant, either knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, and (2) the allegedly false statements are necessary to a finding of probable cause. No evi-dentiary hearing is required if there remains sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause without the allegedly false statements, and allegations that false statements were negligently or innocently made are insufficient ”

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