51 Ala. App. 338 - Bates v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 , the U.S. Supreme Court stated: “ ‘An evaluation of the constitutionality of a search warrant should begin with the rule that “the informed and deliberate determinations of magistrates empowered to issue warrants * * * are to be preferred over the hurried action of officers * * * who may happen to make arrests.” United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452, 464 , 52 S.Ct. 420, 423 , 76 L.Ed. 877 : The reasons for this rule go to the foundations of the Fourth Amendment.’ “[1, 2] In order for a search warrant to be sufficient and satisfy the constitutional requirement of probable cause, the affidavit upon which it is based must contain competent evidence to support the magistrate’s finding. Skelton v. Superior Court of Orange County, 1 Cal.3d 144 , 81 Cal.Rptr. 613 , 460 P.2d 485 . The sufficiency of an affidavit is determined by whether it meets the stipulations for probable cause as laid down in Aguilar, supra. “That test is two-fold and sets the following requirements: “ ‘. . . [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, see Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528 , 84 S.Ct. 825 , 11 L.Ed.2d 887 , was “credible” or his information “reliable.” Otherwise, “the inferen”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 342 So. 2d 437 - Dudley v. State

2. ““STATE OE ALABAMA "1 COUNTY OE MOBILE J AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANT IN THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS OF MOBILE COUNTY CASE NO__ BEFORE Paul W. Brunson, Judge of the Court of General Sessions of Mobile County, personally appeared David E. Beck, Deputy Sheriff. The undersigned being duly sworn deposes and says: That he has reason to believe that on the premises known as 652 Rickarby Street, Mobile, Alabama, a residence occupied by John Doe whose name is otherwise unknown, there is now being concealed certain property in the County of Mobile, namely: Illegal Narcotics, to-wit: Heroin, which is in violation of Act #1407, Section 401, Regular Sessions, Alabama Legislature, Approved September 16, 1971 (Senate Bill 414). And that the facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for the issuance of a search warrant are as follows: 1. I have received information in the past several days from a reliable and creditable informer concerning the sale of Heroin at the above residence. 2. My informer is reliable because he has given me information in the past 2 months concerning Narcotics, which has led to arrests and convictions in the courts of Mobile County. 3. On July 25, 1972, my ibformer (sic) stated to me he was invited along with others to the above residence to take part in a large purchase of Heroin. Acting on this information, I personally parked accross (sic) the street from the above described residence and I personally saw my informer and segeral (sic) other persons enter ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 53 Ala. App. 330 - Funches v. State