52 Md. App. 463 - Shoemaker v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2001
11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · United States v. Ventresca · United States v. Harris · Steagald v. United States
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The appellants claim that in addition to seizing the evidence of crime properly and particularly described in the warrant, the searching party also seized a number of other, innocuous objects such as receipts for repairs to various structures, warranties for household appliances, oil company credit cards, a prescription for eyeglasses, a Social Security card, a Blue Cross/Blue Shield card, and an engraved picture of a racehorse. They urge, with no direct authority to support them, that this calls for the suppression of even the properly seized evidence. Our answer once again lies in Andresen v. State, 24 Md.App. 128, 180 , 331 A.2d 78 [(1975)], cert. denied, 274 Md. 725 , aff'd, 427 U.S. 463 , 96 S.Ct. 2737 , 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976), which dealt with a remarkably similar set of facts and an almost identical claim: ‘... even if other items had been unconstitutionally seized, that frailty would not mandate the suppression of the items which were constitutionally seized. If the apples remaining in the barrel when it ultimately comes to rest upon the trial table are constitutionally healthy, it matters not how many constitutionally rotten ones were discarded along the way.’ See also Spease and Ross v. State, 21 Md.App. 269, 282-283 , 319 A.2d 560 , and cases cited therein.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The appropriate scope limitations of the Fourth Amendment ... prescribe that the warrant shall be one “particularly describing the place to be searched.” This provision, however, has always been recognized as one which seeks to condemn the roving commission of the “general warrant” or “writ of assistance” to search houses and other places indiscriminately in the unfettered discretion of the search officer. Its salutary purpose is to narrow the locus of the search to a particular, ascertainable well-described house_ What we have in this case is not what the Founding Fathers condemned but what the Founding Fathers were hoping to achieve.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The basis-of-knowledge prong seeks to avoid the danger that even a reliable informant might be passing on, through the conduit of the police affiant, a bit of barroom gossip or a mere underworld rumor. In probing for a more sure basis of knowledge, we seek some assurance that the informant speaks from personal knowledge, that he is passing along what he perceived with his senses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.