55 Md. App. 604 - Gipe 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. “Officer Sheppard had training in the identification of “methaqualudes” (a controlled dangerous substance) and knew how they were ordinarily packaged. Significantly, he testified that the tablets seized were packaged “in the customary manner for the way they are sold on the street in packages ranging from 50 tablets up to 100 tablets per bag.” Further, he indicated that the tablets were caffeine tablets, and were similar in appearance to “street” amphetamines (the type manufactured in clandestine labs)---- Certainly, a rational trier of fact could have reasonably inferred the “two discrete specific intentions” identified by appellant.... Sheppard’s testimony revealed that the caffeine pills were packaged in a manner usually used for illegal distribution, and that the tablets’ physical appearance was similar to amphetamines, a controlled dangerous substance ... [T]he quantity and packaging of the pills could give rise to the logical inference that these pills were to be sold.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Timothy F.

2. “(1) Whether the noncontrolled substance was packaged in a manner normally used for the illegal distribution of controlled substances; (2) Whether the distribution or attempted distribution included an exchange of or demand for money or other property as consideration, and whether the amount of the consideration was substantially greater than the reasonable value of the noncontrolled substance; [and] (3) Whether the physical appearance of the noncontrolled substance is substantially identical to that of a controlled dangerous substance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Timothy F.

3. “after-the-fact scrutiny by courts of the sufficiency of an affidavit should not take the form of de novo review. A magistrate’s determination of probable cause should be paid great deference by reviewing courts. (Emphasis in original.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 88 Md. App. 360 - Miles v. State