State v. Louchheim’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

70 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The ultimate criterion in determining the degree of evaporation of probable cause, however, is . .. reason. 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.” Andresen v. Maryland, 24 Md. App. 128, 172 , 331 A.2d 78 , 106 (1975), cert. denied, 274 Md. 725 (1975), aff’d, 427 U.S. 463 , 49 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1976).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 58 N.C. App. 564 - State v. Lindsey · 7 Ark. App. 219 - Cardozo v. State

2. “[W]e hold that, where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant’s request. In the event that at that hearing the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the affidavit’s false material set to one side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 104 N.C. App. 591 - State v. Crawford · 40 N.C. App. 266 - State v. Winfrey

3. ““No more is required.” Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 533 , 11 L.Ed.2d 887, 891 , 84 S.Ct. 825, 828 (1964). See also Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 , 49 L.Ed.2d 627 , 96 S.Ct. 2737 (1976). Moreover, reviewing courts are to pay deference to judicial determinations of probable cause, Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 (1964), and “the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants.” United States v. Ventresca, supra at 109, 13 L.Ed.2d at 689, 85 S.Ct. at 746.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rook · 110 N.C. App. 413 - State v. Witherspoon