410 So. 2d 463 - Collins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"A search warrant must be executed in the daytime unless the affidavits state positively that the property is on the person or in the place to be searched, in which case it may be executed at any time of the day or night. The issuing judge or magistrate must state in the warrant, according to the character of the affidavits, whether it is to be executed by day or at any time of the day or night." (Emphasis added.)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Taylor · 494 So. 2d 189 - Youtz v. State

2. “"No search warrant can be issued unless supported by probable cause, § 15-5-3 , Code of Alabama 1975; Alford v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 381 So.2d 203 (1979), cert. denied, Ala., 381 So.2d 206 (1980), and the judge or magistrate is satisfied that such exists. § 15-5-5 , Code of Alabama 1975. "Probable cause may be based upon hearsay information from an informant as long as there is a `substantial basis for crediting the hearsay.' Clenney v. State , 281 Ala. 9 , 198 So.2d 293 (1966). A substantial basis exists if the affidavit for the search warrant satisfies the following two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test: the basis of knowledge prong and the veracity prong. Spinelli v. United States , 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). "The affidavit in the present case fully satisfies the first prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test in that it sets forth the detailed observations of the informant while inside appellant's house."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 414 So. 2d 998 - Dickerson v. State · 574 So. 2d 873 - Heard v. State

3. ““[T]he affidavit based on the informant’s tip ... may ... provide the basis for probable cause to search if the information is so detailed and specific that a 'magistrate, when confronted with such detail, could reasonably infer that the informant had gained his information in a reliable way.’ ... “[T]he particularity and detail of the informant’s observations of contraband inside the appellant’s house provided the reliability necessary to credit the hearsay, especially when the informant immediately reported his findings.” 410 So.2d at 465 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Taylor