State v. Martin’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. “"In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), the United States Supreme Court established the `good-faith' exception to the exclusionary rule. In that case, the search warrant was found to be defective because the affidavit upon which it was based failed to establish probable cause to search the named addresses. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's partial grant of the defendants' motion to suppress evidence, gathered pursuant to the exception of the warrant, stating: `In the absence of an allegation that the magistrate abandoned his detached and neutral role, suppression is appropriate only if the officers were dishonest or reckless in preparing their affidavit or could not have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause.' United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , at page 926, 104 S.Ct. 3405 , at page 3422, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). The court in Leon further stated that the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of prosecuting attorneys, magistrates and judges, and that suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in the unusual cases in which exclusion of evidence will further the original purpose of the exclusionary rule." State v. Martin, 487 So. 2d 1295 , at page 1300 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1986), writ den., 491 So.2d 25 (La.1986).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 520 So. 2d 842 - State v. Meyers · 495 So. 2d 422 - State v. Miller

2. “"A search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; La. Const. art. 1, § 5 (1974); La.Code Crim.P. art. 162. The description contained in the search warrant is adequate if it is sufficiently detailed so as to allow the officers to locate the property with reasonable certainty and with reasonable probability that they will not search the wrong premises. Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498 , 45 S.Ct. 414 , 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925); State v. Segers, 355 So.2d 238 (La.1978); State v. Cobbs, 350 So.2d 168 (La.1977). This court has held that a minor error in a portion of the description of the premises to be searched does not invalidate the search. * * * * * * Under the facts of this case, there was little possibility that an apartment not intended to be searched could have been searched through mistake—as indeed it was not. Hence, we conclude that the description in the search warrant sufficiently described the place to be searched. The trial judge erred in holding otherwise." State v. Korman, 379 So.2d 1061 , at page 1063 (La.1980).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 495 So. 2d 422 - State v. Miller