State v. Glenn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[p]robable cause is determined by objectively considering what is known to the state at the time a warrant is presented to a magistrate; it does not require the accuracy presented by hindsight. Inherent in the concept of probable case is that the factual basis of a warrant may be inaccurate. The factual basis for probable cause should be truthful in the sense that the information put forth is to be believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true. . . . [It] does not mean truthful in the sense that every fact recited in the warrant affidavit is necessarily correct, for probable cause may be founded upon hearsay and upon information received from informants, as well as upon information within the affiant's own knowledge that sometimes must be garnered hastily. "This does not mean, however, that probable cause lacks substance. Probable cause means more than mere suspicion. There must be facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge, and of which he has trustworthy information, sufficient to justify the belief of a reasonable person that an offense has been or is being committed. . . .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hopkins, L., Jr. · 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 4824 - State v. Peeler, No. Cr99 148396 (Apr. 25, 2000)

2. “Even if [misinformation provided by the informant] is material, exclusion of competent evidence seems inappropriate. It is true that the warrant will have been issued on inaccurate data, but the fourth amendment has been read not to proscribe “inaccurate” searches, but rather only “unreasonable” ones. And a warrant based on information which the affiant and the magistrate both had reasonable grounds for believing is a reasonable one. To require agents .to “know” facts that they cannot reasonably be expected to know would not deter any searches, since the agents must work with the reasonably believable evidence before them. Such a rule would also allow at least some defendants to escape otherwise certain conviction merely because the police cannot operate with perfect knowledge in every case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hopkins, L., Jr.

3. “In order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following *Page 530 tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach . . . (2) holdings and dicta of this court and the Appellate Court . . . (3) federal precedent . . . (4) sister state decisions or sibling approach . . . (5) the historical approach , including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers . . . and (6) economic/sociological considerations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 48 Conn. Super. Ct. 521 - Schiavone v. Destefano