Dashiell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

88 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Our review of a Circuit Court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment is limited, ordinarily, to information contained in the record of the suppression hearing and not the record of the trial. When there is a denial of a motion to suppress, we are further limited to considering facts in the light most favorable to the State as the prevailing party on the motion. In considering the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, we extend great deference to the fact-finding of the suppression hearing judge with respect to the weighing and determining [of] first-level facts. When conflicting evidence is presented, we accept the facts as found by the hearing judge unless it is shown that his findings are clearly erroneous. Even so, as to the ultimate conclusion of whether an action taken was proper, we must make our own independent constitutional appraisal by reviewing the law and applying it to the facts of the case.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 160 Md. App. 647 - Nieves v. State · 153 Md. App. 83 - Seip v. State

2. “'may be a factor in a totality determination of whether the officers possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion to fear for their safety.' "). Officer Jones testified that the suspicion of drug activity, as well as the knowledge that weapons are routinely associated with drug activity, were factors leading to the protective search of the vehicle for a weapon. When the officers activated their emergency lights to stop the vehicle, based on Mr. Walker's open arrest warrant, appellant acted suspiciously. He did not immediately stop the vehicle, and when he did, the car continued to roll, giving the officers the impression that appellant was "attempting to buy time.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chase v. State · 235 Md. App. 263 - Goodwin v. State

3. “The Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment categorically prohibits the issuance of any warrant except one “particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” The manifest purpose of this particularity requirement was to prevent general searches. By limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search, the requirement ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to prohibit. Thus, the scope of a lawful search is “defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. Just as probable cause to believe that a stolen lawnmower may be found in a garage will not support a warrant to search an upstairs bedroom, probable cause to believe that undocumented aliens are being transported in a van will not justify a warrantless search of a suitcase.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 Md. App. 234 - Walls v. State