22 Cal. 3d 67 - People v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 300 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 308 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “After Krauss, a police officer need not rely solely on lawfully obtained probable cause; he can instead achieve “certain cause” by conducting an unlawful confirmatory search, thus saving himself the time and trouble of obtaining and executing a warrant if he does not find the evidence. He can safely engage in this conduct because Krauss teaches him that if the evidence does turn up in the course of the illegal search, he will still be allowed to seize it later in a second “search” under color of a warrant. The latter prospect thus gives him strong incentive to proceed with the warrantless entry. Yet every time he fails to find the suspected evidence, he has also invaded the privacy of a citizen innocent of any wrongdoing. The second “search” is therefore constitutionally unreasonable because it significantly contributes to increasing the risk of such invasions of privacy.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Taheri · State v. DeWitt

2. “specific property lawfully subject to seizure ... [then] located in the particular place for which the warrant is sought.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 96 Cal. App. 3d 421 - Burkholder v. Superior Court · 30 Cal. 3d 193 - People v. Superior Court (Corona)

3. “We reject this approach as being inconsistent with the overriding principle of reasonableness which governs the application of the Fourth Amendment to the criminal law. Instead, we conclude that only when the affiant has acted unreasonably in making factual mistakes must those errors be excised from the affidavit before testing the existence of probable cause. While undeniably misstatements impede the function of the magistrate, once it has been determined that the affiant has acted reasonably under the circumstances, little more can be required of him. To exclude evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant issued on the basis of facts upon which an affiant has reasonably relied as being accurate serves no purpose of deterrence to unlawful conduct since, by definition, the affiant has already made a reasonable attempt to comply with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. [[Image here]] There is no reason to hold an officer to a standard of absolute accuracy in those instances in which the inference-drawing power is reserved for the magistrate who is to issue a warrant, when the officer is only required to reach a reasonable factual deduction in those instances in which he makes the inferences and acts without a warrant. In both cases, the constitutional standard is one of reasonableness.”

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