Stoddard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “per se unreasonable ... subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Brown v. State · Whisenhunt v. State

2. ““The informer’s report must first be measured against Aguilar’s standards so that its probative value can be assessed. If the tip is found inadequate under Aguilar , the other allegations which corroborate the information contained in the hearsay report should then be considered. At this stage as well, however, the standards enunciated in Aguilar must inform the magistrate’s decision. He must ask: Can it fairly be said that the tip, even when certain parts of it have been corroborated by independent sources, is as trustworthy as a tip which would pass Aguilar’s tests without independent corroboration? Aguilar is relevant at this stage of the inquiry as well because the tests it establishes were designed to implement the long standing principle that probable cause must be determined by a ‘neutral and detached magistrate,’ and not by ‘the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.’ ... A magistrate cannot be said to have properly discharged his constitutional duty if he relies on an informer’s tip which — even when partially corroborated — is not as reliable as one which passes Aguilar’s requirements when standing alone.””

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

3. ““We do not mean to hold that ‘exigent circumstances’ may never exist in the case of a parked car. Nor does the fact that the place which is searched is an automobile serve as an automatic justification for a warrantless search .. . The test is whether ‘exigent circumstances’ make the obtaining of a warrant impracticable. In the instant case no showing is made as to why the obtaining of a warrant was not practicable.””

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