290 So. 2d 681 - State v. Paciera’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

136 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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The affidavit submitted to the magistrate may be based entirely upon hearsay, but, if so, it must set forth underlying circumstances and details sufficient to provide a substantial factual basis by which the magistrate might find reliable both the informant and the information given by him. Factors which support the credibility of an unidentified informant include prior accurate reports or any specific independent corroboration of the accuracy of the instant report. Factors which support the credibility of the information reported include (a) direct personal observation by the informant, or (b), if the information came indirectly to the informant, the reasons in sufficient factual detail for the magistrate to evaluate and credit the reliability both of the indirect source and of the indirectly-obtained information.”

   28 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Matthews · State v. Tranum

2. “"As Spinelli [ Spinelli v. U. S., 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 ] observed, `in judging probable cause magistrates are not to be confined by niggardly limitations or by restrictions on the use of their common sense' and `their determination of probable cause should be paid great deference by reviewing courts.' 393 U.S. 419 , 89 S.Ct. 590 . Further, where the law enforcement officers have respected the constitutional mandate to secure a warrant before searching, `[a]lthough in a particular case it may not be easy to determine when an affidavit demonstrates the existence of probable cause, the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants." Ventresca v. U. S., 380 U.S. 102, at 109 , 85 S.Ct. 741, 746 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 . See also Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, at 270 , 80 S.Ct. 725, 735-736 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 ." 290 So.2d at 687 . State v. Paciera, supra.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Flood · 323 So. 2d 770 - State v. Luneau

3. “"A search warrant may issue only upon probable cause established to the satisfaction of the judge, by the affidavit of a credible person, reciting facts establishing the cause for issuance of the warrant. "A search warrant shall include a reasonable description of the things to be seized. When a warrant authorizes the search of a place, it shall designate the place to be searched. When a warrant authorizes the search of a person, it shall name or describe the person to be searched."”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Flood · 387 So. 2d 1111 - State v. Stephenson