People v. Corrado’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 12 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he envelopes could have contained any number of contraband items. This is in sharp contrast to the translucent envelope which has come to be accepted as the telltale sign of heroin. Still, even in the case of the glassine envelope it has never been held that the mere passing of such an envelope establishes probable cause. We conclude, therefore, that the testimony concerning the use of these common envelopes for marijuana does not raise the level of inference from suspicion to probable cause. In reaching our conclusion, we have not retreated in any manner from our prior decisions that a police officer is entitled to draw on his whole knowledge and experience as a criminal investigation officer. Thus, where a layman would see absolutely nothing suspicious about the envelopes and the events preceding the arrests, the officer was surely entitled to use his expertise to the contrary. It does not follow, however that the officer is entitled to draw the inference of criminality when others, possessed of the same special knowledge or expertise, would not (see Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 102 , 80 S.Ct. 168 [171, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 ]; Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 , 69 S.Ct. 1302 [1310] 93 L.Ed. 1879 ).”

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

2. “The People argue, nevertheless, that probable cause existed here because there was uncontradicted testimony by [one of the arresting officers] that, in his experience as an investigator assigned to the Narcotics Bureau, he had never seen loose marijuana in small quantities passed or sold in envelopes other than in the type involved here. This knowledge, it is claimed, justified the officer in drawing the inference that appellants probably had contraband in their possession. [Par.] The argument is defective because the envelopes could have contained any number of noncontraband items.... We conclude, therefore, that the testimony concerning the use of these common envelopes for marijuana does not raise the level of inference from suspicion to probable cause.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 22 Cal. App. 3d 972 - Thomas v. Superior Court