Commonwealth v. D'Amour’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 74 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An executing officer has a lawful right of access to the object seized if the terms of the warrant entitle him to search where the object is found. Id. at 563. The unchallenged portions of the warrant authorized the seizure of ammunition as well as writings related to the ownership of firearms. The police therefore were entitled to search any container that "could conceal items of the kind portrayed in the warrant." United States v. Gray, 814 F.2d 49 , 51 (1st Cir. 1987). The officer thus had "a right to be where he was, looking at what he was looking at, when he came across" the letter. United States v. Rutkowski, 877 F.2d 139 , 141 (1st Cir. 1989). Once the officer came across the letter, he was permitted to examine it "cursorily" to determine wether it was a writing relating to the ownership of firearms. Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 , 482 n. 11, 96 S.Ct. 2737 , 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976). See Menon, supra at 563 (officer entitled to look at documents carefully enough to determine whether they were within scope of warrant); State v. Andrei, 574 A.2d 295 , 298 (Me. 1990) (officer's examination of four lines of a diary "revealed no more than what was exposed to plain view"). When the police "scanned" the letter, the motion judge found that "it became immediately apparent that they stumbled on evidence of a motive on the part of the defendant for killing her husband: professed love for another and hatred of the deceased." This determination supports the conclusion that the of”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 13026 - State v. Thompson, No. Cr 18-95928 (Sep. 27, 1999)

2. “Upon conclusion of the monitoring and recording on each day on which this warrant is being executed, the original tapes of the matters recorded are to be sealed by the law enforcement officials executing this warrant. Said sealing shall take place upon completion of a working copy of the tapes. The sealing shall include physical sealing of the tapes, together with the sealing officer’s initials and the date upon which the tapes were sealed. Said sealed tapes are to then remain in the custody of law enforcement officials designated to execute this warrant until such time as it is appropriate that they be delivered to me for delivery to the Chief Justice’s office.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 198 F. Supp. 2d 3 - Rankins v. Murphy

3. “to determine wether it was a writing relating to the ownership of firearms. Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 , 482 n. 11, 96 S.Ct. 2737 , 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976). See Menon, supra at 563 (officer entitled to look at documents carefully enough to determine whether they were within scope of warrant); State v. Andrei, 574 A.2d 295 , 298 (Me. 1990) (officer's examination of four lines of a diary”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 13026 - State v. Thompson, No. Cr 18-95928 (Sep. 27, 1999)