Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 341 NW2D 420 - State v. Seager

State v. Seager’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
10
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Johnston (1988), 37 Cal. 3d 385 - People v. Guerra (1984)

4 federal appellate · 41 state decisions — followed in 10 states

2401983199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Franks v. Delaware · Dunaway v. New York · Henry v. United States · 31 Cal. 3d 18 - People v. Shirley · State v. Hurd

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

  1. “Probable cause to search, in contrast to probable cause to arrest, requires a probability determination as to the nexus between criminal activity, the things to be seized, and the place to be searched.... Even if there is probable cause — or even absolute certainty — that certain described items are presently to be found in a certain described place, a lawful basis for search has not been established unless it is also shown to be probable that those items constitute the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime. In the absence of such a showing, the described items are not a legitimate object of a search.... Mere suspicion that the objects in question are connected with criminal activity will not suffice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[A]ny probable cause review in response to a motion to suppress must be made upon the basis of the information presented to the magistrate at the time the warrant was issued; a defective warrant cannot be resuscitated by consideration of additional information now available or even of information available when the warrant was obtained but which was not communicated to the magistrate.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the test is whether a person of reasonable prudence would believe a crime was being committed on the premises to be searched or evidence of a crime could be located there.”
    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.