351 So. 2d 489 - State v. Rey’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably State v. Hudgins (1988), 354 So. 2d 1334 - State v. Sutfield (1978)
61 state decisions
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 Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · United States v. Thomas · 347 So. 2d 221 - State v. Holmes · 329 So. 2d 704 - State v. Thomas · 324 So. 2d 369 - State v. Chaffin
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“". . . when faced with an affidavit containing inaccurate statements the preferred approach is to excise the inaccurate statements and then examine the residue to determine if it supports a finding of probable cause. If, however, the misrepresentations were intentionally made, a different result is required. Because these distorted statements constitute a fraud upon the courts and represent impermissible overreaching by the government, a warrant based on an affidavit containing intentional misrepresentations must be quashed. ". . . The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is the deterrence of such deliberate governmental wrongdoing, and this policy is best served by quashing the warrant." 351 So.2d at 492 .”
10 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Neisler · State v. Page“As noted by the court in Thomas, the term `intentionally' must be used here to mean deliberate act made for the purpose of deceiving the magistrate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Paster · State v. Jackson“"In the present case, the record indicates that the prosecutor assembled his information on the voting records of prospective jurors from the records in the office of the clerk of court and that the same records are available to any defense attorney. The defendant has failed to demonstrate the required prejudicial effect of the denial of access."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Singleton
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.