Waters v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As employees of detective agencies engaged to guard the property of their employer’s clients, security guards have not been granted police powers by statute and therefore are not state agents in any traditional sense for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Without governmental powers, security guards are acting as private citizens when protecting property, and their private status is not altered because their interest in protecting property coincides with the public’s interest in preventing crime generally---Moreover, mere state licensing of a private individual’s occupation, without more, does not constitute sufficient state control to make the individual a state agent. Nor does extensive state regulation of itself convert the actions of those regulated into state action. “The only evidence in the case'was that Madden was a licensed security guard at the time he seized the plastic bags, and the trial judge so held. Water’s argument that Madden was a state agent is wholly unconvincing. Consequently, Judge Goudy correctly determined that the seized cocaine was admissible in evidence, there being no showing (or even an allegation) that Madden was working in collusion with the police at the time of the search, or otherwise acted as an instrument of the State in the performance of his duties.””

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

2. “The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. It applies to actions by the State, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 , 81 S.Ct. 1684, 1691 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), but generally does not apply to actions by private individuals. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 , 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1656 , 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984); Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 467 , 41 S.Ct. 574, 574 , 65 L.Ed. 1048 (1921). Thus when a private individual obtains incriminatory matter from an accused, no matter how improperly, and such matter comes into the possession of the government without a violation of the accused’s rights by governmental authority, the exclusionary rule does not prohibit its use at trial. Bowers v. State, 298 Md. 115, 139-40 , 468 A.2d 101 (1983); Herbert v. State, 10 Md.App. 279, 284-85 , 269 A.2d 430 (1970). A private search or seizure may, however, trigger Fourth Amendment protections if the private individual whose actions are in question, “in light of all the circumstances of the case, must be regarded as having acted as an ‘instrument’ or agent of the state.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 487 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2048 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 226 Md. App. 93 - Paige v. State

3. “Special police officers are deemed state agents in the performance of their responsibilities. Unlike special police officers, security guards are not vested with arrest or other police powers.... Courts in Maryland have therefore determined that such private security guards are not state agents unless they are working under the direction of, or in concert with, law enforcement officers.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 226 Md. App. 93 - Paige v. State