State v. Ruff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Concededly, [the officer's] complaint did not directly link the marijuana to the house. Direct evidence, however, is not necessary to a probable cause determination. [Citation omitted.] `In dealing with probable cause, . . . as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.' [Citations omitted.] A judge making a probable cause determination `need not determine that the evidence sought is in fact on the premises to be searched . . . or that the evidence is more likely than not to be found where the search takes place. . . . [The judge] need only conclude that it would be reasonable to seek the evidence in the place indicated in the affidavit.' [Citation omitted.] In reaching his conclusion, a judge `is entitled to draw reasonable inferences about where evidence is likely to be kept, based on the nature of the evidence and the type of offense.' [Citations omitted.] In this case, [the officer's] observation of marijuana growing in Malin's yard reasonably yielded the conclusion that marijuana or other evidence of marijuana possession would be found in Malin's house. [Citation omitted.] "Malin makes much of the fact that [the officer's] complaint cited no evidence establishing that the marijuana was cultivated (although the marijuana was in fact cultivated). Malin argues that [this] failure to cite evidence of cultivation”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 39 Kan. App. 2d 471 - State v. Mell

2. ““The time lapse between Ruff s arrest and the trial was approximately 3 years. A delay of 3 years is significant, warranting a consideration of the other Barker factors.” 266 Kan. at 32 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Weaver