29 Md. App. 62 - Ryon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(1) The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies equally to statements and tangible evidence obtained following an illegal arrest or an otherwise illegal search and seizure. (2) Such statements are not rendered inadmissible simply because of the illegal arrest or unreasonable search and seizure. (3) Such statements are not rendered admissible simply because the Miranda warnings were fully given. (4) Admissibility of such statements, vel non, must be answered on the facts of each case, upon consideration of: (a) the voluntariness of the statement, which is a threshold requirement; (b) compliance with the Miranda safeguards, which is important in determining whether the statements were obtained by exploitation of the illegal conduct; (c) other relevant factors, such as (i) the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession; (ii) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (iii) `particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.'"”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 42 Md. App. 546 - Davis v. State · In re Darryl P.

2. ““We know now, in the light of Tucker , that failure to give all the Miranda warnings does not necessarily abridge the privilege against self-incrimination.... [T]he Court in Miranda ‘recognized that these procedural safeguards were not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but were instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination was protected... .’ Thus, evidence obtained without full compliance with the Miranda dictates is not, for that reason, always to be excluded. So ... the failure to advise an accused during a custodial interrogation ... of his right to appointed counsel, did not in the circumstances existent, infringe against the right against compulsory self-incrimination but only violated the prophylactic rules developed to protect that right. Therefore, the use of the testimony of a witness discovered by the police as a result of the accused’s statements did not violate any requirements under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments....””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 147 Md. App. 1 - Ashford v. State · 33 Md. App. 115 - Bartram v. State

3. ““The illegality here, moreover, had a quality of purposefulness. The impropriety of the arrest was obvious; awareness of that fact was virtually conceded by the two detectives when they repeatedly acknowledged, in their testimony, that the purpose of their action was ‘for investigation’ or for ‘questioning.’ The arrest, both in design and in execution, was investigatory. The detectives embarked upon this expedition for evidence in the hope that something might turn up. The manner in which Brown’s arrest was effected gives the appearance of having been calculated to cause surprise, fright, and confusion.’’ (Footnotes and references omitted)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 29 Md. App. 85 - Newborn v. State