State v. Caffey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 65 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““On November 28,1961, Mr. Donald E. Bonacker, then an assistant prosecuting attorney, filed in the Magistrate Court of Greene County an ‘affidavit for Search Warrant’ and on that same date the Magistrate Court issued a search warrant to the Sheriff of Greene County, authorizing the search of a safe deposit box theretofore rented to the defendant. On the authority of thjs search warrant, the sheriff went to the bank and with the aid of a locksmith, caused the lock of the safe deposit box to be drilled and the box opened. The only contents of that box was State’s Exhibit ‘D’ [the narcotic drug seized], “The affidavit for search warrant signed by Mr. Bonacker did not purport to reflect that Mr. Bonacker had such personal knowledge as would have justified the issuance of a search warrant. To the contrary, the Bonacker affidavit made it clear on its face that it depended on an accompanying affidavit executed by one Doyle Mace, the full text of which was: T, Doyle Mace, on this 28th day of November, 1961, being duly sworn state that the following facts are true: During August, 1961, James R. Caffey told me that he had a bottle of a narcotic commonly known as “coke” in his lockbox at the Union National Bank. He also said the “coke” was extremely valuable on the illicit market.’ “Since the alleged statement by petitioner to Mace occurred ‘during August, 1961’ the lapse of time between the alleged admission and the making of the affidavit was at least 90 days, and possibly as much as ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 332 F. Supp. 624 - Caffey v. Swenson

2. ““As I understand it, the magistrate did not have before him the information that the bank records showed no one had entered the box since the preceding December. No such evidence was adduced at the time the warrant was issued. The validity of the search warrant cannot be determined on information subsequently discovered which would have supported it, but which was unknown to and hence not considered by the magistrate in determining whether probable cause had been shown him for the issuance of the warrant. It was good or bad when issued. In re Search Warrant of Property at Apartment No. 7 (Mo.Sup.) 369 S.W.2d 155, 158 , but counsel overlooked this.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 332 F. Supp. 624 - Caffey v. Swenson

3. ““From this record it appears that assigned counsel investigated the facts relating to the question of probable cause, examined the lockbox records at the bank (from which it was evident that there was every reason to believe that cocaine in the box August 1 was still there), read and considered the affidavit and warrant and made a considered judgment, based upon both the affidavit and the extraneous facts that the magistrate had probable cause to believe that Caffey had cocaine under his control in that box.” 457 S.W.2d at 661 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 332 F. Supp. 624 - Caffey v. Swenson