Miles v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

87 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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, evidence obtained after initial unlawful governmental activity will be purged of its taint if it was inevitable that the police would have discovered the evidence. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377, 387 (1984). Second, the taint will be purged upon a showing that the evidence was derived from an independent source. See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 239-242 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1938-1940 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1164-1166 (1967). The third exception ... will allow the use of evidence where it can be shown that the so-called poison of the unlawful governmental conduct is so attenuated from the evidence as to purge any taint resulting from said conduct. See Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488 , 83 S.Ct. at 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d at 455 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 194 Md. App. 629 - Cox v. State · State v. Holt

2. “[T]he question is not whether the officers did in fact acquire the evidence in question by relying upon an untainted source, but whether the evidence, which was found because of a Fourth Amendment violation, would have been found lawfully. The State must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the lawful means which made discovery inevitable were being actively pursued prior to the illegal conduct.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. King v. State · 192 Md. App. 653 - Thompson v. State

3. “"It is black letter law that once a defendant has demonstrated the existence of a primary illegality [14] ... the burden shifts to the government to prove that the resulting evidence was not derived from that illegality.... "The government can demonstrate that the taint of the primary illegality has been purged in three ways: (1) by demonstrating that the causal nexus between the illegality and the subsequently discovered evidence is sufficiently attenuated so that the taint has been dissipated, see Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 487-88 , 83 S.Ct. at 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 , (2) by demonstrating that the subsequently discovered evidence was obtained from a source independent of the primary illegality, see United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 242 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1940 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); or (3) by demonstrating that, absent the illegality, the State still inevitably would have discovered the later evidence. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984).... [15] ... "In examining the Wong Sun attenuation doctrine, courts repeatedly utilize consequential language, such as `exploitation,' `direct result,' `chain of events,' `link,' `nexus,' `impetus,' `connection,' `causation,' `inducement,' `basis,' and `product' to describe the necessary relationship between a primary illegality and evidence derived therefrom. In assessing attenuation, courts examine the facts and circumstances of each case in considering four factors: the giving of Miranda war”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pringle v. State