State v. Van Pieterson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) If in issuing the warrant the magistrate was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth; (2) Where the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role; (3) Where the warrant is based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable; and (4) Where a warrant is so facially deficient (i.e. in failing to particularize the place to be searched and/or the items to be seized) that the executing officer could not reasonably presume it to be valid. (emphasis added).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 579 So. 2d 802 - Bonilla v. State · 777 So. 2d 385 - Thorp v. State

2. “When a material fact is omitted from the affidavit filed in support of the probable cause determination, such fact constitutes a material omission if a substantial possibility exists that the omission would have altered a reasonable magistrate's probable cause determination.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 777 So. 2d 385 - Thorp v. State

3. “a warrant may be so facially deficient — i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized — that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 914 So. 2d 1015 - Crain v. State