Powers v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently February 2016
19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Beck v. State of Ohio · Giordenello v. United States · Graham v. State · Emerson v. State
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"'As this Court stated in Smith v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 603 , 271 N.E.2d 133 , 136: "The test for probable cause to make an arrest is whether at the time of the arrest the facts and circumstances ... were sufficient to warrant a prudent man of reasonable caution in believing that the arrestee had committed or was committing an offense. Beck v. Ohio, (1964) 379 U.S. 89 , 85 S.Ct. 223 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 ." Emphasis added. See Gaddis v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 100 , 368 N.E.2d 244 . Thus, whether probable cause existed for the arrest is determined by examining the facts and circumstances as they were known to be at the time of the arrest.' Riggenbach v. State, (1979) [272] Ind. [322], 397 N.E.2d 953, 954-55 . Although the above cited case dealt with probable cause for arrest, we feel the rationale is similar for probable cause in issuing a search warrant. The facts known to Officer Croft at the time the search warrant was issued indicated that illegal activity was taking place in Appellant's house. That some of the underlying circumstances may be shown later after trial to be illegally obtained does not change the fact that probable cause existed for the search and subsequent arrest. No error has been shown." (Our emphasis.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Snyder v. State“"It may be possible that the information concerning the eight occasions when the informant knew where Appellant was going and who he was meeting was obtained by listening in on telephone calls but this speculation was apparently insufficient to convince the trial court of any illegality. Officer Croft stated that he did not know of any illegal interceptions nor did he authorize any interceptions. [[Image here]] If Hartman had testified at the suppression hearing and at that point convinced the trial court of her allegations [phone intercepts] the search warrant would have been invalid due to the illegal information contained therein." (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Snyder v. State“'As this Court stated in Smith v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 603 , 271 N.E.2d 133 , 136:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Snyder v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.