370 So. 2d 1108 - Laffitte v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably 386 So. 2d 1180 - Tice v. State (1980), 405 So. 2d 721 - Yarbrough v. State (1981)
32 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 Miller v. United States · United States v. James · McClure v. United States · 21 Cal. App. 3d 289 - Moe v. Transamerica Title Insurance · Cooley v. State
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"To execute a search warrant, an officer may break open any door or window of a house, any part of a house or anything therein if after notice of his authority and purpose he is refused admittance."”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Irwin v. State · Conner v. State“' "Where it appears from facts adduced that an announcement of the officers' purpose would frustrate a search, increase the personal peril of the executing officers or cause destruction of the evidence sought, there would be no necessity for compliance with the knock and announce rule, for these exceptions constitute 'exigent circumstances.' " ' " From the record, three distinct exigent circumstances existed at the time of the execution of the search warrant complained of: 1) the state's police witnesses testified that they had knowledge of the presence of firearms inside the appellant's house. Officer Ed Smith testified that he knew that guns were inside the house and that "whenever we have prior knowledge that there [are] weapons in the house, we don't wait to give a defendant inside time to pick that weapon up and cause, you might say, a shoot-out or cause someone to get shot unnecessarily.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The propriety of the method of entering a premises varies with the exact factual circumstances involved in each particular *Page 600 case. State v. Newman , 12 Or. App. 266 , 506 P.2d 523 (1973). In evaluating an officer's compliance with a 'knock-and-announce' statute, the courts look only to the facts and circumstances with which the officer is faced at the time he makes his decision and acts upon it. People v. Schad , 21 Cal.App.3d 201 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 439 (1971)."”
3 later decisions 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.