473 So. 2d 1188 - Gamble v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “or words of similar import in the warrant invalidates the warrant and renders inadmissible the evidence discovered during the search.' We answer that question in the negative.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Tyson v. State · 784 So. 2d 357 - Ex Parte Tyson

2. “"The question, as the trial court framed it in its order denying the motion to suppress, is `whether or not, under the circumstances of this case, the failure of the issuing judge to use the words "at anytime of day or night" or words of similar import in the warrant invalidates the warrant and renders inadmissible the evidence discovered during the search.' We answer that question in the negative. "In Dean v. State , 54 Ala. App. 270 , 307 So.2d 77 (Ala.Cr.App. 1975), this court upheld a nighttime search for which the warrant lacked a directive that it be served `at any time of the day or night.' We found that because the warrant was in fact issued at night under authorization for an `immediate' search, the statutory requirement of § 15-5-8 was satisfied. See also United States v. Sturgeon , 501 F.2d 1270 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1071 (1974). The same situation is present here. As the trial judge found, `The issuing judge was requested and did issue the warrant in the middle of the night knowing that if would be immediately executed.' "[The defendant] insists that the trial court's finding regarding the issuing judge's knowledge of when the warrant was to be executed is a fact outside the record of which there is no proof. We do not believe, however, that the finding is one which requires proof of the district judge's state of mind. Because the record clearly shows that Judge Kennedy issued the warrant in the nighttime hours and the warrant form directed an `immedi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Tyson v. State

3. “"Although there is a split of authority on the admissibility of evidence obtained in a nighttime search when the warrant does not contain language authorizing nighttime execution, see generally Annot. 58 A.L.R. Fed. 757 (1982); compare State v. Dudgeon , [ 13 Ariz. App. 464 , 477 P.2d 750 (1970)] (allowing evidence), with State v. Dalrymple , 80 N.M. 492 , 458 P.2d 96 (1969) (disallowing evidence on the ground that a warrant must conform to statutory requirements in every material detail), of those courts finding the warrant technically invalid many have, nevertheless, refused to order suppression of the evidence on one or more of the following grounds, namely: (1) a statutory — as opposed to a constitutional — violation does not automatically warrant exclusion, see , e.g. , United States v. Searp , [ 586 F.2d 1117 (6th Cir. 1978), cert. denied , 440 U.S. 921 (1979)]; State v. Lien , 265 N.W.2d 833 (Minn. 1978); (2) the statutory violation was not a result of bad faith conduct on the part of law enforcement authorities, see e.g. , United States v. Searp , supra; and (3) the violation did not affect the defendant's substantial rights, see e.g. , United States v. Ravich , 421 F.2d 1196 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 834 , 91 S.Ct. 69 , 27 L.Ed.2d 66 (1970)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 784 So. 2d 357 - Ex Parte Tyson