381 So. 2d 97 - Travis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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. “"This affidavit is sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to search the described residence despite the defendant's several grounds of objection. The affidavit satisfies both the basis of knowledge test and the veracity test of Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). "The affidavit contains an express statement of time of the occurrence of the facts relied upon, i.e., within the past two days from March 31, 1978. A statement by the affiant that his informant observed the alleged offense `within' a certain period of time is sufficiently clear and definite. 100 A.L.R.2d 525 , Section 5 (c) (1965). The affidavit need not state the exact time the informant observed the events relied upon to show probable cause. "The informant observed cocaine in the house `within the past two days' from March 31, 1978. The search warrant was obtained and executed on April 1, 1978. The information contained in the affidavit is not too remote. "`The requirement that an affidavit for a search warrant state the time of the occurrence of the facts relied upon is based on the necessity that there exist at the time the warrant is issued probable cause for believing that the facts relied upon still continue to exist. Simultaneity is, of course, normally impossible, but just how long a time may be permitted to elapse without destroying the basis for a reasonable belief as to the continuance of the situation set forth in the affidavit will vary according to the f”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 382 So. 2d 1147 - Allen v. State · 456 So. 2d 341 - Reese v. State

2. “"A declaration that the informant's past information has led to convictions is a sufficient showing of the informant's credibility, McCray v. Illinois , 386 U.S. 300 , 87 S.Ct. 1056 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967). "`It should not be concluded, however, that for an informant to have an acceptable "track record" it must appear that his prior information has resulted in one or more convictions, for this clearly is not the case. As explained in People v. Arnold , 186 Colo. 372 , 527 P.2d 806 (1974): "`"To impose the more stringent requirement that the information led to convictions would impose an undue restriction on law enforcement officers. The information previously furnished may be in connection with cases not yet tried or may relate to prosecutions dismissed for reasons unrelated to the reliability of the informant's information. Of course, the fact that the information previously supplied has resulted in convictions would strengthen the reliability factor of the informant."' LaFave, Vol. 1 at 510. "In Keller v. State , 54 Ala. App. 127 , 305 So.2d 402 (1974), this Court held that an assertion in the affidavit that the informant's prior information led to three arrests stated sufficient facts upon which to base the credibility of the informant. While the better view is that a bald assertion that the informant's past information prompted the police to make one or more arrests will not suffice to establish the informant's credibility (because it does not indicate the information was ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 456 So. 2d 341 - Reese v. State

3. “"It is a settled principle that a warrant to search designated premises will not authorize the search of every individual who happens to be on the premises. Smith v. State , 292 Ala. 120 , 289 So.2d 816 (1974). Here the officers had probable cause to believe that evidence which might be concealed or destroyed was to be found upon the defendant. They acted within the lawful limits of their authority in searching his person."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 695 So. 2d 141 - Martin v. State