560 So. 2d 1145 - State v. Spears’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This cause was remanded to the Circuit Court of Clarke County, Alabama, by the Alabama Court of Criminal appeals, on, to-wit, the 1st day of December 1989. “Upon consideration of: (1) a further hearing in this cause on the 2nd day of August 1990; (2) a review of the testimony heretofore presented on the 15th and 16th days of August 1988; and (3) the order of remandment by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals released December 1, 1989, the Court finds as follows: “1. That the re-entry of the scene by John Michael Taylor at approximately 6 p.m. on the 7th day of December, 1987, was a mere continuation of the initial intrusion in the home of the defendant on said date at approximately 3 p.m. by Officer Maurice Dyess; “2. That the following items of evidence which were seized subsequent to the initial emergency were within the plain view of Officer Maurice Dyess at the time he initially responded to the emergency situation and entered and secured the premises; vis. (1) State’s Exhibit No. 1 (a shotgun); (2) State’s Exhibit No. 2 (a .22 rifle); (3) State’s Exhibit No. 3 (a single-barrel shotgun); (4) State’s Exhibit No. 4 (brown bag); (5) State’s Exhibit No. 4 [sic] (gray bag); (6) State’s Exhibit No. 6 (Outers gun cleaning kit); (7) State’s Exhibit No. 38 (cushion); (8) State’s Exhibit No. 66 (sketch of crime scene); (9) State’s Exhibit No. 67 (small diagram); (10) State’s Exhibit No. 68 (bag with wadding and pellets; (11) State’s Exhibit No. 69 through No. 94 (photographs); (1”

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

2. “when a law enforcement officer enters private premises in response to a call for help, and during the course of responding to the emergency observes but does not take into custody evidence in plain view, a subsequent entry shortly thereafter, by detectives whose duty it is to process evidence, constitutes a mere continuation of the original entry. Under such circumstances, it is permissible for the detectives to [seize,] photograph and take measurements [of], without a search warrant, ... evidence which was in the plain view of the initial responding officers.”

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