State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 46 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘Probable cause . . . refers to that quantum of evidence which would lead a prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed. It is not necessary that the evidence giving rise to such probable cause be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, nor must it be sufficient to prove guilt is more probable than not. It is only necessary the evidence lead the officer to believe that guilt is more than a possibility, and it is well-established that the belief may be predicated in part upon hearsay information.’ [Citations omitted.]””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Niblock · City of Dodge City v. Hadley

2. “[T]he collective information of police officers and law enforcement officers involved in an arrest can form the basis for probable cause, even though that information is not within the knowledge of the arresting officer.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Buckner · Karr v. Smith

3. ““The information upon which a determination to arrest without a warrant is made must be reasonably reliable, and the chain of communication through which facts known to the police are received must be constructed with reliable links from its source to the resulting arrest; this chain of communication must be reliably cohesive from a reliable source to the resulting arrest (United States v. Dento, 382 F.2d 361 , cert. denied 389 U.S. 944 , 19 L. Ed. 2d 299 , 88 S. Ct. 307 ; reh. denied 389 U.S. 997 , 19 L. Ed. 2d 502 , 88 S. Ct. 493 ). ‘There is no requirement that tire arresting officer have sufficient firsthand knowledge to constitute probable cause. It is enough that tire police officer initiating the chain of communication either had firsthand knowledge or received his information from some person — normally the putative victim or an eye witness — who it seems reasonable to believe is telling the truth’ (Daniels v. United States, 393 F.2d 359, 361 ). Therefore, when an arrest is based on a message relayed over police radio, the question of probable cause is determined upon the full information which caused the message to be sent over the radio and not on the basis of the message alone (see State v. Dearman, 203 Kan. 94 , 453 P.2d 7 ). If it later turns out that the officer or agency initiating the chain of communication did not have probable cause to make an arrest, the arrest made by the officer relying on the radio message will be unlawful (Whitely v. Warden, 401 U.S. 56”

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