34 Conn. App. 492 - State v. Vargas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

51 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “whether the will of the consenting individual was overborne, or whether the consent was his unconstrained choice.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hildonen, No. Cr97-70098397s (May 14, 1998) · 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 6771 - State v. Hildonen, No. Cr 97-70098397 S (May 14, 1998)

2. “Under the inevitable discovery rule, evidence illegally CT Page 1425-ax secured in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights need not be suppressed if the state demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence would have been ultimately discovered by lawful means. [ Nix v. Williams , 467 U.S. 431 , 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984).] To qualify for admissibility the state must demonstrate that the lawful means which made discovery inevitable were possessed by the police and were being actively pursued prior to the occurrence of the constitutional violation. United States v. Cherry , 759 F.2d 827 , 846 (11 th Cir. 1985). In Nix v. Williams , supra, 443, the United States Supreme Court observed that the operation of the exclusionary rule in situations where the police would have inevitably discovered the evidence by legal means already initiated would put the state in a worse position than it would have been in if no police misconduct had transpired. Fairness can be assured by placing the State and the accused in the same positions they would have been in had the impermissible conduct not taken place. Id., 447. State v. Badgett [supra, 200 Conn. 433 ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gritz, No. Cr96-103069 (Jan. 5, 2000)

3. “has given voluntary consent to enter or search his or her premises is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court by considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding the entry or search. . . . It is to be decided by the trial court on the basis of the evidence before it that it finds credible, along with the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. . . . The ultimate question is whether the will of the consenting individual was overborne, or whether the consent was his unconstrained choice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rodriguez, No. Cr95-234475 (May 7, 1997)