353 So. 2d 54 - Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 2015
15 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 Terry v. Ohio · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · SGRO v. United States
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`. . . "Had observed" could have been any time in the past. The informer did not tell the officer-affiant the date or time he allegedly observed the narcotics on the premises. There is nothing in the affidavit which hints of time except the use of the past tense in connection with the informant's telephone report to affiant.' "The fact that heroin was previously seized on February 23, 1973, at 2624 Tempest Drive, Apartment H, did not establish probable cause to believe that heroin was on the premises three weeks later. "Also, the fact that on March 6, 1973, an undercover police officer purchased a quantity of heroin from Eric Rogers on the premises did not establish probable cause to believe that a week later such narcotic would be still found thereon . Seven days is a considerable length of time in which to remove heroin from the premises or dispose of it in another fashion. Such makes for a stale warrant . Haynes v. State , 50 Ala. App. 96 , 277 So.2d 372 [(1973)]; Miller v. State , 54 Ala. App. 230 , 307 So.2d 40 [(1974)]."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I charge you that the fact that one associates with a narcotic [sic] dealer in no way calls for an inference that such person is engaged in the criminal traffic of narcotics.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“" The affidavit is deficient because it fails to show that the information received from the informant was fresh as opposed to being remote . Davis v. State , 46 Ala. App. 45 , 237 So.2d 635 , affirmed, 286 Ala. 117 , 237 So.2d 640 [(1970)]. The affidavit stated that the informant `had observed' heroin being used and sold from the premises described. The affidavit does not state the date or the time the informant allegedly observed the heroin on the premises. The affidavit in this case is strikingly similar to one this Court, through Harris, J., ruled to be legally insufficient. Walker v. State , 49 Ala. App. 741 , 275 So.2d 724 , cert. denied, 290 Ala. 371 , 275 So.2d 732 [(1973)].”
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.