46 Ala. App. 118 - Oliver v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently August 1990 · most notably 53 Ala. App. 330 - Funches v. State (1974), 49 Ala. App. 741 - Walker v. State (1973)
47 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
Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Jones v. United States · Clenney 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ 'In Knox v. State, 42 Ala.App. 578 , 172 So.2d 787 (10), we indicated that it was possible to supply the deficiencies in an affidavit if, in fact, additional oral evidence was laid before the issuing magistrate. In Brandies v. State, 44 Ala.App. 648 , 219 So.2d 404 , and Tyler we indicated that such oral evidence must, nevertheless, to the extent required by § 103 of T. 15, supra, be reduced to writing. . . . ’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]f the affidavit is on its face insufficient to support a finding of probable cause, the State may then adduce testimony showing that the sufficient evidence was, in fact, before the issuing magistrate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"... It is my view that oral testimony should be admissible to cure an otherwise defective affidavit. "Could it have been logically argued that due to the failure of a committing magistrate (in conformity with Tit. 15, § 135, Code of Alabama, 1940, now repealed by Act No. 1106, Special and Regular Sessions, 1969) to reduce the evidence to writing, a defendant who has been bound over to the grand jury must be released. I think not. Similarly, the failure of an issuing magistrate to comply with Tit. 15, § 103, should not vitiate an otherwise valid search warrant. "It should be remembered that prior to Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 , evidence was admissible at trial, with the exception of liquor cases (Tit. 29, § 210, Code of Alabama, 1940) regardless of the manner of seizure. To strictly construe Tit. 15, § 103 [§ 15-5-4, Code of Alabama, 1975] as to prevent a reviewing court from considering oral testimony given before an issuing magistrate is but to engraft an additional state requirement on the already strict federal search and seizure rules now made mandatory on state courts."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.