State v. Marrow’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) ... the affiant clearly implied that the critical conversation discussed in the affidavit was between the confidential informant and him, even though the affiant did not expressly state that he "personally" spoke to or interviewed the informant, see e.g., Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); United States v. Davis, 714 F.2d 896 (9th Cir.1983); Debord v. State, 422 So.2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), [therefore] the affiant's statement is at least recklessly false; (2) The fact that probable cause existed or could have been readily shown by a truthful affidavit stating that the affiant's information came from a fellow officer does not change the result, since it is the truth of the affiant's statement, not the truth of the confidential informant's statement that is material to the magistrate's decision to issue the search warrant, United States v. Davis, 714 F.2d 896 ; and (3) since after the required excision of the false information concerning the confidential informant see Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. at 172 , 98 S.Ct. at 2684 , there are not sufficient facts in the affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, the warrant is thus invalid, and suppression of the evidence seized thereunder was properly granted.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 523 So. 2d 744 - State v. Beney · 555 So. 2d 342 - Villemez v. State

2. “did not expressly state that he 'personally' spoke to or interviewed the informant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 523 So. 2d 744 - State v. Beney · 555 So. 2d 342 - Villemez v. State

3. “'your affiant received information from a reliable confidential informant,' [when] in fact, the affiant had never communicated with the alleged confidential informant, but had spoken only to a fellow police officer, who told the affiant about the reliability of the confidential informant and the information which the informant gave.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 555 So. 2d 342 - Villemez v. State