385 So. 2d 1044 - State v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(c) It is lawful under this chapter for a law enforcement officer or a person acting under the direction of a law enforcement officer to intercept a wire or oral communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 400 So. 2d 758 - Hoberman v. State · 397 So. 2d 643 - State v. Sarmiento

2. “unreasonable interception of private communications”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 389 So. 2d 1045 - State v. Shaktman · 397 So. 2d 643 - State v. Sarmiento

3. “It is now well-established in Florida law that the above constitutional prohibition [article I, section 12, Florida Constitution] against the "unreasonable interception of private communications" may be satisfied either by obtaining a warrant (under Section 934.07), or by assuring that one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, and, if consent is relied upon, such consent is evidenced by the testimony of the consenting party, subject to cross-examination, as a condition precedent to the introduction of the recording into evidence. Tollett v. State, 272 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1973); and Franco v. State, 376 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 397 So. 2d 643 - State v. Sarmiento