Kail v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[I]t is axiomatic that a court of review will 'not invalidate warrant[s] by interpreting affidavit{s] in a hypertechnical, rather than a commonsense, manner.' [citations omitted] We have previously discussed the analysis utilized to review a magistrate's determination of probable cause: 'While the quantity and nature of the constituent elements necessary to establish probable cause are inextricably related to each given set of facts, there are two basic questions pertinent to the determination of probable cause for a search under any set of facts: (1) whether the particular items sought to be seised are sufficiently conmected with criminal activity and (2) whether the items are to be found in a particular place. If sufficient facts are presented so that a neutral and detached magistrate can make an affirmative response to these questions, probable cause may be presumed to exist thus making the issuance of the search warrant reasonable. [citations omitted] Our review of the probable cause determination is limited to an examination of the same information that was before the magistrate when the warrant was issued."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Edwards v. State · Foster v. State

2. “"Detective Craig Converse swears or affirms that he believes and has good cause to believe from my investigation I learned from reliable persons that the following facts and attending cireumstances that: On 12-1-90 at about 12:50 p.m. Mildred E. Stanfield was a vietim of a purse grab and criminal homicide. This occurred at the Corner [sic] of 60th and College Avenue. Witnesses to the incident described the suspect as a light skin young black male. Witnesses said that vehicle in which the suspect ran to was a white new model Oldsmobile Calais, very clean. During my investigation, I found a white 1990 Oldsmobile Calais vin 1g8n154wxlim759629 stolen 12-1-90 10:00 a.m. This vehicle was found in the 3300 block of North Carrollton Avenue. The vehicle had the column punched and the rear passenger window busted [sic] out. On the window was a clear tape used to tape the window. The tape was removed by David Zauner of the Crime Lab. Prints were hand searched by Patrolman Frank Welfler and Mike Petty. On 12-29-90, Welfer and Petty of latent prints found latent prints recovered from the tape matched those of William Alvin Foster gallery number J-7578. Foster lives at 83046 North College Avenue. The vehicle was stolen and recovered under case number 880022f, Also recovered from the vehicle were fur fibers found on the driver seat. At this time several items are missing from the vehicle. I request a Search Warrant be issued for the residence 3046 North College Avenue. Also for the person o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Foster v. State

3. “(a) Except as provided in section 8 of this chapter, no warrant for search or arrest shall be issued until there is filed with the judge an affidavit: (1)particularly describing: (A) the house or place to be searched and the things to be searched for; or (B) particularly describing the person to be arrested; (2) alleging substantially the offense in relation thereto and that the affiant believes and has good cause to believe that: (A) the things as are to be searched for are there concealed; or (B) the person to be arrested committed the offense; and (3) setting forth the facts then in knowledge of the affiant or information based on hearsay constituting the probable cause. (b) When based on hearsay, the affidavit must either: (1) contain reliable information establishing the credibility of the source and of each of the declarants of the hearsay and establishing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished; or (2) contain information that establishes that the totality of the circumstances corroborates the hearsay.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Edwards v. State