Cook v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Hooks v. State (1980), Commonwealth v. O'CONNOR (1989)
33 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 · Chapman v. State of California · Stovall v. Denno · Griffin v. California · Adams v. Williams
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]vidence, obtained during the course of illegal police conduct, will not be suppressed if the prosecution can prove that the incriminating evidence “would have been discovered through legitimate means in the absence of official misconduct.” (Comment, The Inevitable Discovery Exception to the Constitutional Exclusionary Rules, 74 Col.L.Rw. 88, 90 (1974).)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Harris · Martin v. State“(1) the experience and qualifications of the dog’s handler; (2) the dog's experience, skill, training, and reputation as a tracker; and (3) the circumstances pertaining to the trailing itself.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Wilkie v. State · McDuffie v. State“The instant case is a clear example of the type of situation intended to fall within the purview of the exception. As the commentator has noted: The majority of the cases employing the inevitable discovery exception involve instances in which the illegal police conduct occurred while an investigation was already in progress and resulted in the discovery of evidence that would have eventually been obtained through routine police investigatory procedure. The illegalities in such cases, therefore, had the effect of simply accelerating the discovery. In general, where the prosecution can show that the standard prevailing investigatory procedure of the law enforcement agency involved would have led to the discovery of the questioned evidence, the exception will be applied to prevent is suppression.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Harris
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.