Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 24 Va. App. 738 - Polston v. Commonwealth

24 Va. App. 738 - Polston v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
February 2011
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2011

17 state decisions

100199720002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Spinelli v. United States · United States v. Ventresca · Alabama v. White · United States v. Rabinowitz

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “`are better understood as relevant considerations in the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis that traditionally has guided probable-cause determinations: a deficiency in one may be compensated for, in determining the overall reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other, or by some other indicia of reliability.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““On this date 1-6-95, a citizen appeared before the magistrate of the Twelth [sic] Judicial District Court and stated the fol lowing facts under oath and the penalty of purgery [sic]. This citizen stated that within the past 72 hours he/she observed a quantity of marijuana being stored and being offered for sale at the apartment mentioned in section two of this document. * * * “I was advised of the facts set forth in this affidavit, in whole or in part, by an informer. This informer’s credibility or the reliability of the information may be determined from the following facts: “The citizen mention[ed] in section 4 of this document made these statements while under oath and after being advised of the penalty of purgery [sic] by your affiant. Your affiant has been a police officer for over six years and is currently employed in the Vice and Narcotics Unit of the Chesterfield County Police Department. Your affiant has made several drug arrests and is familiar with the drug culture in and around Chesterfield County. The citizen has decided to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) the informer has previously given rehable information; (2) the informer previously has worked with the police and has made controlled buys or worked in narcotic surveillance or other law enforcement efforts; (3) the informer provided detailed information that only a person who had actually observed the criminal activity would know; or (4) the informer has made a declaration against his penal interest.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.