Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 338 GAAPP 804 - Taylor v. the State

Taylor v. the State’s Empirical Analysis

2016

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Barker v. Wingo · Doggett v. United States · State v. Ariegwe · In re Draffin · 148 Md. App. 601 - Wilson v. State

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

  1. “Barring a hypertechnical reading of the affidavit, an inference that the residence described is the same as the residence where evidence can be found, is much more reasonable than its opposite-that the residence described in such painstaking detail actually has no relationship to the events of this case. We think the reviewing judge was well within his rights to draw the rational inference and avoid the irrational. Understandably, the reviewing judge was concerned that ''there was no indication in the affidavit that Defendant lived at this address, that he was presently at that address or had been at that address sometime in the past.'' However, considered in context, what else could the detective have intended to say? More significant still, what other inference could the issuing judge reasonably have come to? Simply put, it is a stretch to draw the opposite inference; one must work hard not to infer that [the address listed in the affidavit] is ''the residence'' where all these criminal acts occurred and where incriminating evidence can be found. Deference is due under the circumstances, and his decision to issue the warrant is supported by a substantial basis in the record.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “that Taylor lived at 1751 Bergen Court and that items listed in the search warrant would be found there. Given the substantial deference we owe to the magistrate's probable cause decision, we conclude that the magistrate was authorized to determine that probable cause existed for the issuance of the search warrant. Because of this nexus that the magistrate could infer between Taylor and 1751 Bergen Court based on all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit and attachment, this case is not one in which the magistrate had to make his probable cause determination based only on”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “other jurisdictions have applied a common-sense approach to resolving the issue when the affidavit fails to state explicitly that an address to be searched is the residence of the suspect.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.