3 Md. App. 379 - Waugh v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The claim that the evidence seized was inadmissible because the police officers executing the search warrant did not advise those within that they had such a warrant and demand admittance, but broke in forcibly without notice, is an extension of the old rule that a peace officer seeking to arrest an individual who is in a house, either by authority of an arrest warrant or under circumstances making a warrant unnecessary, must give proper notice of his purpose and authority and be denied admittance before he can use force to break and enter.... ❖ ❖ * However, the rule has often been made subject to qualifications and exceptions even in states with statutes, so that by judicial decision announcement and demand are not a requisite where the facts make it evident the officers’ purpose is known or where they would frustrate the arrest, increase the peril of the arresting officer or permit the destruction of evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 117 Md. App. 133 - Wynn v. State

2. “[i]f the exigencies and practicalities of the situation demand entry without prior notice and demand, force may be used to break and enter under authority of a valid search warrant. Practicalities and exigencies in searches for narcotics require the element of surprise entry, for if opportunity is given all evidence easily may be destroyed during the time required to give notice, demand admittance and accept communication of denial of entry.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 117 Md. App. 133 - Wynn v. State

3. ““[I]t would seem that the perfection of small firearms and the development of indoor plumbing through which evidence can quickly be destroyed, have made [statutes requiring notice of authority and purpose before the use of force to enter] ... a dangerous anachronism. In many situations today.. ., a rule requiring officers to forfeit the valuable element of surprise seems senseless and dangerous.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Lujan