United States v. Chavez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"This test is typically referred to as ` Aguilar's two-pronged test.' [Citing cases] The first `prong' requires that the affidavit disclose particular facts or circumstances which justify concluding that the informant is a reliable or trustworthy person. The second requires specific facts or circumstances tending to demonstrate that the informant, in the instance in question, had gathered his information in a reliable manner. The theory underlying these twin requirements is that they are dictated by the long-standing principle that determinations of probable cause are to be made by `neutral and detached magistrate[s],' rather than by `officer[s] engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.' Johnson v. United States, 1948, 333 U.S. 10, 14 , 68 S.Ct. 367, 369 , 92 L.Ed. 436, 440 . If a magistrate accepted an affidavit which did not meet the first prong of the test, the theory went, he would abandon to the officer his constitutional function of making an independent determination; for his determination would then be entirely dependent upon the officer's judgment of the informant's credibility. Similarly, if he accepted an affidavit not meeting the second prong, he would abandon his function to the informant; then his determination would depend entirely upon the informant's judgment about the facts of the case."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Acosta · Byars v. State

2. “These [circumstances] were: (1) the allegation of the affiant that he regarded the informant as “prudent”; (2) the detail provided in the tip; (3) the fact that the affidavit also alleged that the accused had a reputation for being a trafficker in nontaxpaid liquor ; and (4) the fact that the information given, with the allegations of the informant’s purchases, was a declaration against the informant’s penal interest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United States v. Hill

3. “"[T]he magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed, (citations omitted), was `credible' or his information `reliable.'" 378 U.S. at 114 , 84 S.Ct. at 1514 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Byars v. State