State v. Yaritz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The likelihood that the evidence sought is still in place is a function not simply of watch and calendar but of variables that do not punch a clock: the character of the crime (chance encounter in the night or regenerating conspiracy?), of the criminal (nomadic or entrenched?), of the thing to be seized (perishable and easily transferable or of enduring utility to its holder?), of the place to be searched (mere criminal forum of convenience or secure operational base?), etc.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ward · State v. Sherwood

2. “Lee James Kochendorfer first came to the attention of the St. Paul police narcotics unit in July of 1980 when Sgt. Jung, acting in an undercover capacity was investigating William Hayes. Hayes, while attempting to obtain some hashish, directed Sgt. Jung to the area of Sherburne Av. and Victoria Av. Hayes thought he observed some surveillance and decided not to buy hashish on that date. William Francis Hayes was later arrested and charged with a narcotics violation. Hayes pled guilty to a narcotics violation on 9/22/80. After Hayes was in police custody he told Sgt. Jung and the affiant that the person from whom he intended to purchase hashish was Lee and from a description of the house we were able to establish the location as 847 Sherburne. The owner of the house at 847 Sherburne is Lee James Kochendorfer. Since that time Kochendorfer has been under investigation by the Narcotics unit of the St. Paul Police Department. The affiant, as part of the ongoing investigation of Lee Kochendorfer and 847 Sher-burne Av., had occasion to meet with a confidential informant (Cl). The Cl was searched, supplied with a quantity of money, and watched as he/she went to 847 Sherburne to purchase controlled substance. When the Cl left the premise at 847 Sherburne he/she was followed to a prearranged meeting place and the Cl then turned over to the affiant a quantity of controlled substance which was, in fact, proven to be such by the Crime Lab of this department. On a second occasion the CI aga”

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

3. “Since it is upon allegation of presently existing facts that a warrant is issued, it is essential that it be executed promptly, “in order to lessen the possibility that the facts upon which probable cause was initially based do not become dissipated.” If the police were allowed to execute the warrant at leisure, the safeguard of judicial control over the search which the fourth amendment is intended to accomplish would be eviscerated. Thus, a search pursuant to a “stale” warrant is invalid. . . . Timeliness of execution should not be determined by means of a mechanical test with regard to the number of days from issuance, nor whether any cause for delay was per se reasonable or unreasonable. Rather it should be functionally measured in terms of whether probable cause still existed at the time the warrant was executed.”

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