State v. Teague’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`[T]he scope of the warrant to search is dependent upon the extent of the *Page 1372 showing of probable cause. The command to search can never include more than is covered by the showing of probable cause to search.' [U.S. v.] Hinton , 219 F.2d [324] at 325. `Therefore, when the structure under suspicion is divided into more than one occupancy unit, probable cause must exist for each unit to be searched.' United States v. Whitney , 633 F.2d 902 , 907 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1004 [ 101 S.Ct. 1717 , 68 L.Ed.2d 208 ] . . . (1981). "`[A] search warrant directed against a multiple-occupancy structure will usually be held invalid if it fails to describe the particular subunit to be searched with sufficient definiteness to preclude a search thereunder of other units located in the larger structure and occupied by innocent persons.' Annot., 11 A.L.R.3d at 1333. The general rule is that `a search warrant directed at a multiple-occupancy structure will ordinarily be held invalid if it describes the premises only by street number or other identification common to all the subunits located within the structure. What is needed is a description which singles out a particular subunit.' 2 LaFave [Search and Seizure at] 78-9 [(1978)]. See also C. Torcia, 1 Wharton's Criminal Procedure § 166 (12th ed. 1974); 68 Am.Jur.2d Searches and Seizures § 77 (1973)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 488 So. 2d 1368 - Sadie v. State

2. “"`[A] warrant which describes a multiple-family dwelling as the place to be searched and fails to specify a particular sub-unit therein may be upheld in one or more of the following situations: "`1. the warrant adequately identifies the sub-unit by naming its occupant. . . .; "`2. the officers who applied for and executed the warrant did not know or have reason to know of the multi-unit character of the premises prior to the actual search. . . .; "`3. it is shown that defendant exercised dominion or control over the entire premises. . . .; "`4. probable cause is established to search the entire premises. . . .; "`5. the deficiency of description contained in the warrant can be cured by reference to its supporting affidavit and such affidavit is attached to the warrant *Page 1373 at the time of its execution and incorporated by reference therein.'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 488 So. 2d 1368 - Sadie v. State

3. “"`To say that a defendant "was not prejudiced because the search did not extend beyond his apartment, would overlook the fundamental basis of the constitutional requirements" and make "admissibility depend on success of the search" notwithstanding the fact the warrant "vests the officer with selective discretion in determining where he could search."' W. LaFave, 2 Search and Seizure 81 (1978)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 488 So. 2d 1368 - Sadie v. State