539 So. 2d 410 - Day v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently October 2010
19 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 Illinois v. Gates · 414 So. 2d 998 - Dickerson v. State · 508 So. 2d 218 - Ex Parte Glover · 466 So. 2d 196 - Dale v. State · 479 So. 2d 1385 - Oliver v. State
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The requisite probable cause is present 'if a reasonably prudent person, based on the facts and circumstances which the officer knows, would be justified in concluding that the items sought are connected with criminal activity and that they will be found in the place to be searched.' " Day v. State , 539 So.2d 410 , 413-14 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988). "When we speak of probable cause, we are dealing with probabilities which are factual and practical considerations of everyday experience.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[E]xigent circumstances exist whenever an object to be searched is mobile or moveable. . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In Mulhern , the defendant's conviction for trafficking was reversed because the state's evidence, establishing the weight of the marijuana possessed, consisted of a lab report which revealed only the weight of the plant material and did not provide the actual weight of the marijuana contained in the plant material. However, in the instant case, the evidence clearly established, as noted above, that the only thing contained in the bags was marijuana, as that term is defined in § 20-2-2 (15). And unlike in Mulhern , Odom's testimony in the case at bar was that the bags contained marijuana, not that the material within the bags contained marijuana. In Mulhern , the lab report indicated the presence of marijuana in the material, while, in the instant case, Odom's testimony established that all of the material in the bags was, in fact, marijuana."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.