222 Wis. 2d 311 - State v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
June 2008
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · United States v. Leon · United States v. Ventresca · Ohio v. Robinette · Richards v. Wisconsin
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although we will defer to a magistrate's conclusion whenever possible, and we will permit reasonable inferences to sustain the reliability and timeliness of information in a warrant application, neither the Fourth Amendment nor Article I, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution permits a magistrate to infer a link between evidence of drug dealing and the dealer's residence when the application is devoid of any facts or information from which to infer such a link.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ward“THE COURT: What about my experience has (sic) been that in the last eight years, I have had numerous cases that deal with this kind of thing, and I can't remember a time when somebody was dealing drugs when they weren't being dealt out of the person's house? Now, maybe there are different customs everywhere, but here in Beloit, that's been every case that I have ever had.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ward“2.) Your affiant further states he is familiar with the confidential files kept by the Beloit Police Department Special Operations Bureau and as a result knows that the Beloit Police Department has received four pieces of intelligence indicating that Lance Ward is a drug dealer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ward
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.