State v. Weekes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * Assuming [Officer Blades’] utmost good faith in his judgment that defendant should be confined for the ‘protection’ of himself and others or held for ‘investigation,’ it is nevertheless clear that defendant was taken into custody and confined without a warrant and without probable cause in violation of Fourth Amendment guarantees, for absent probable cause there is not and never has been any lawful basis for ‘holding’ a person ‘for investigation’ or ‘on suspicion.’ Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 , 89 S.Ct. 1394 , 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969); State v. Mitchell, 285 Minn. 153 , 172 N.W.2d 66 (1969). Indeed this is the very essence of the protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment freedom of ‘[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons’ against unreasonable seizures of both physical and verbal evidence which may be used in a criminal prosecution. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 ; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961).” ... [As] Mr. Justice Powell in his concurring opinion in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 610 , 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2265 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 , 431 ... state[s]: “I would require the clearest indication of attenuation in cases in which official conduct was flagrantly abusive of Fourth Amendment rights. If, for example, the factors relied on by the police in determining to make the arrest were so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely u”

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

2. “(1) Whether Miranda warnings were given; (2) The temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession; (3) The presence of any intervening circumstances; (4) The purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct; (5) The treatment of defendant while confined; (6) His relationship with his interrogators; and (7) His freedom of communication with persons other than law-enforcement officers.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McDonald-Richards