State v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably United States v. Lalor (1993), United States v. Vigeant (1999)
4 federal appellate · 22 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 Illinois v. Gates · United States v. Leon · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Commonwealth v. Upton
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Analyzed in a commonsense, non-hyper-technical way, the affidavit in the instant case does not supply anything more than a most tenuous and conclusory suggestion that the Thompsons were involved in criminal activity. In our view, the investigation in Leon produced much more possibly incriminating information leading to a conclusion that a search warrant was. justified than the investigation in this case. It is our conclusion that under these circumstances, the officer’s reliance on the magistrate’s determination of probable cause was objectively unreasonable, he having supplied the information on which the search warrant was issued, and therefore, under the third exception in Leon , exclusion of all evidence obtained in execution of the invalid search warrant is appropriate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““ ‘The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a “substantial basis for ... concluding]” that probable cause existed.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Handtmann“our application of that exclusion will be little different from the `totality of the circumstances' standard of review of Gates,...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Ringquist
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.