56 Ill. 2d 523 - People v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

170 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 170 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “° # * It is well established that a search without a warrant is reasonable and valid if it is incident to a lawful arrest and there is no requirement that the arrest be under the authority of an arrest warrant. (Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 41 , 10 L. Ed. 2d 726 , 83 S. Ct. 1623 .) In turn, the validity of an arrest without a warrant depends upon whether the officers had reasonable cause to believe that an offense had been committed and that the defendant had committed it. (People v. Jones, (1959), 16 Ill.2d 569, 573 .) The test is not whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the arrested person, but probable cause exists for arrest where a reasonable and prudent man, having the knowledge possessed by the officer at the time of the arrest, would believe the defendant committed the offense. (People v. Hightower, (1960), 20 Ill.2d 361, 366 .) In deciding the question in a particular case, courts deal with probabilities and are not disposed to be unduly technical. (People v. Fiorito, (1960), 19 Ill.2d 246, 256 .)’ People v. Jones, (1964), 31 Ill.2d 240, 243-4 .””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Struhart · 44 Ill. App. 3d 835 - People v. Handy

2. ““ “The substance of all the definitions’ of probable cause ‘is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt.’.* * * Probable cause exists where ‘the facts and circumstances within their [the officers’] knowledge, and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information, [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that’ an offense has been or is being committed. [Citation.] These long-prevailing standards seek to safeguard citizens from rash and unreasonable interferences with privacy and from unfounded charges of crime. They also seek to give fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection. Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability.” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 44 Ill. App. 3d 835 - People v. Handy

3. ““* * *A trial 0f this duration may not be free of evidentiary error. However, we do not find any error which could have resulted in a denial of real justice or in a jury verdict which could have been the result of such error. There is no basis for reversal in the evidentiary issues. ‘It is not the policy of this court to reverse a judgment merely because error has been committed, unless it appears that real justice has been denied thereby or that the verdict of the jury may have resulted from such error.’ People v. Cavanaugh (1958), 13 Ill. 2d 491, 492 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 90 Ill. App. 3d 760 - People v. Moore