Wehrenberg, Michael Fred’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “None of the information on which the warrant was secured was derived from or related in any way to the initial entry into petitioners’ apartment; the information came from sources wholly unconnected with the entry and was known to the agents well before the initial entry. No information obtained during the initial entry or occupation of the apartment was needed or used by the agents to secure the warrant. It is therefore beyond dispute that the information possessed by the agents before they entered the apartment constituted an independent source for the discovery and seizure of the evidence now challenged. This evidence was discovered the day following the entry, during the search conducted under a valid warrant; it was the product of that search, wholly unrelated to the prior entry. The valid warrant search was a “means sufficiently distinguishable” to purge the evidence of any “taint” arising from the entry.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lopez v. State

2. “■ (a) No evidence obtained by an officer or other person- in- violation of - any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws‘ of the United - States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial' -of any criminal case_• (b) It is an exception to the provisions of subsection (a) ... that the evidence was obtained by a .law enforcement officer acting in objective good faith reliance upon a warrant issued by & neutral . magistrate based on probable cause.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Perez v. State

3. “... Law Enforcement Officers violated the constitutional and statutory rights of the Defendant . under the Fourth...Amendments] to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution, and under Article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Any tangible evidence seized in connection with this case, including but not limited to items seized from the Defendant’s phone(s) was seized without warrant, probable cause or other lawful authority in violation of the rights of Jay Chung....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jay Yoon Chung v. State