415 So. 2d 1238 - McClellan v. State’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. “It is well established that, although the Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches, all searches without a warrant are deemed per se unreasonable unless they fall within certain recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 570 So. 2d 805 - Mewbourn v. State · 624 So. 2d 1095 - Andrews v. State

2. ““Probable cause may be based solely on hearsay information received from an informant as long as there is a ‘substantial basis for crediting the hearsay.’ Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960); Clenney v. State, 281 Ala. 9 , 198 So.2d 293 (1966). A substantial basis for believing the hearsay report exists if the informant’s tip satisfies the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ requirements outlined in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). However, if the tip fails to meet either the veracity or basis of knowledge test, it may still, by itself, supply probable cause if the tip is ‘self-verifying,’ i.e., if its information is so detailed and specific that a ‘magistrate, when confronted with such detail, could reasonably infer that the informant gained his information in a reliable way.’ Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pugh v. State ex rel. Galanos