Hesselrode v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 13 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[s]ave for the First and Fifth Amendments, the Fourth Amendment, from which we receive Section 12 to Article I of our own Florida Constitution, is probably most important to the liberty of all freedom loving citizens. One cannot sit idly by and observe its meaning be slowly eroded away even by well-meaning police and prosecutors.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson · Stewart v. State

2. “said officer being present and acting in its [the warrant's] execution.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Md. App. 75 - Daniels v. State · 502 So. 2d 1356 - State v. Griffis

3. “Valiantly as did the State Attorney’s Office try here, it could not cure the original sin initiated by the hand of one of its members. The State would have us say that because there were members of the Manatee Sheriffs Office out and about the scene, then service of the warrant by the Longboat Key officers satisfied the statute and the constitution. The State points to Nofs v. State, 295 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). In Nofs the warrant was directed to “the Sheriff and/or Deputy Sheriffs of Pinellas County, Florida; and police officers of the City of St. Petersburg, Florida.” Service of the warrant was made in the City of Gulfport by, and this is another twist, a St. Petersburg police officer. The warrant in Nofs was saved for, although the officer was technically out of his jurisdiction as a St. Petersburg police officer, he was, however, a bonded deputy sheriff. He thus belonged to one of the categories to which the warrant was directed. He also accompanied and assisted the other officers in searching the premises subject to the warrant. Thus, Nofs differs from this case. A fair reading of the transcript of the hearing in the case sub judice leads us to but one conclusion and that is this investigation was solely the work of the Longboat Key Police Department and only incidentally others. No member of the Manatee Sheriffs Office on July f, 1977 participated in this investigation, the execution of the warrant or the search of the premises subject to the warrant. At best, wha”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Md. App. 75 - Daniels v. State