397 So. 2d 555 - Dannelley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The necessity giving rise to the Alabama Child Pornography Act is that child pornography is different from obscenity in general. That is why the Legislature enacted separate legislation to deal with child pornography. Child pornography is different from general obscenity both in the degree of depravity involved and in the nature and extent of the harm involved. As for depravity, whatever may be said, and has been said, about what consenting adults do with and to each other, nothing so debases civilized society as the defilement of children for purposes of producing photographs like those involved in these cases. To state it simply, there are no further depths to which appellants could have lowered themselves. "As for the harm involved, what the United States Senate Judiciary Committee said in reporting out a bill which became the Federal Child Pornography legislation is on point: "`Such encounters cannot help but have a deep psychological, humiliating impact on those youngsters and jeopardize the possibility of healthy, affectionate relationships in the future. Indeed such children often grow up in an adult life of drugs and prostitution. Even more tragic, however, is the fact that many adults who were molested as children tend to become child molesters themselves, thus continuing the vicious cycle. S.Rep. No. 95-438, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 9 (1977).' "Whatever the effects of obscene materials on those who view them, as the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded, `the use of ch”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 745 So. 2d 912 - Rutledge v. State

2. “"Seizable items which inadvertently come into view of the officer lawfully searching in connection with another crime, or who otherwise has a right to be where he is, may be retained and used in prosecution of the crime to which they relate if the officer is already in the constitutionally protected area. Sheppard v. State , 49 Ala. App. 674 , 275 So.2d 353 ; Lucy v. State , 46 Ala. App. 484 , 243 So.2d 756 ; Harris v. United States , 390 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 992 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 ; Ker v. California , 374 U.S. 23 , 83 S.Ct. 1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 401 So. 2d 308 - Baty v. State

3. “"Any parent or guardian who knowingly permits or allows their child, ward, or dependent under the age of 17 years to engage in the production of any obscene matter containing a visual reproduction of such child, ward, or dependent under the age of 17 years engaged in any act of sado-masochistic abuse, sexual excitement, masturbation, breast nudity, genital nudity, or other sexual conduct shall be guilty of a Class A felony."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 721 So. 2d 255 - Cole v. State