State v. Steffani’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Since [the defendant] would have no constitutional or statutory complaint had [the undercover police officers] initially arrested him and seized his drugs [when he offered the drugs for sale on the defendant’s premises], it should make no constitutional or statutory difference to him either that these events occurred a few minutes later or that they were formally accomplished by other officers summoned solely for the salutary purpose of protecting the undercover men. In sum, we think ... that the consensual relinquishment of the defendant’s privacy involved in inviting the undercover officers into his home extends not only to their own contemplated reentry but also to the causally and temporally closely-related actions of other officers who act at their direction and must therefore be deemed to stand in their shoes.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 659 So. 2d 290 - Fidalgo v. State · 426 So. 2d 1035 - State v. Cantrell

2. “... [T]he fact that one officer left and returned on a ruse may have benefited the officers by allowing them the added protection of other armed officers to assist in the arrest, but such conduct did not constitute an additional intrusion into the defendants' premises since such intrusion had already been lawfully accomplished by the undercover officers... .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 463 So. 2d 499 - State v. Hume

3. “... [W]e do not adopt the extreme position advocated by the state that the use of the defendant's premises as a place of illegal business effects a waiver of his right to challenge any and all subsequent police intrusions into his home.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 463 So. 2d 499 - State v. Hume