568 So. 2d 384 - Nelms v. State’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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`And that the facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a search warrant are as follows: That within the last seventy-two hours a confidential police informant , who has provided information to the affiant in the past that led to an arrest, stated to the affiant that they have seen Crack-Cocaine in the residence of Tommie Lee Nelms , alias, located at 625 Westview Drive, Auburn, Lee County, Alabama.' (State's and Defendant's Exhibit # 1.)"”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Green · Harrelson v. State

2. “"[T]he only possible way to justify the admission of the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant in this case would be as a `good faith' exception to the exclusionary rule as enunciated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). In Leon , `the Supreme Court held that evidence obtained pursuant to a facially-valid search warrant, later found to be invalid, is admissible if the executing officers acted in good faith and in objectively reasonable reliance on the warrant.' United States v. Hove, 848 F.2d 137, 139 (9th Cir.1988). However, the Leon Court specifically noted four circumstances when it cannot be asserted that the officer is acting in `good faith' because `the officer will have no reasonable grounds for believing that the warrant was properly issued. ' Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 , 104 S.Ct. at 3420 . One of these circumstances is when an officer relies `on a warrant based on an affidavit "so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable." ' In its discussion of this circumstance, the Supreme Court stated that `"Sufficient information must be presented to the magistrate to allow that official to determine probable cause; his action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusion of others."' Leon, 468 U.S. at 915 , 104 S.Ct. at 3416 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). "In Herrington v. State, 287 Ark. 228 , 697 S.W.2d 89”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Green · United States v. Lamon

3. “"The affidavit in this case is [constitutionally] deficient because it does not state when the drugs were seen by the informant at the [defendant's] residence. The words `within the last seventy-two hours' refer to when the informant told this information to the affiant, not to when the informant observed the narcotics in the [defendant's] residence. There is absolutely no reference to the date or time when the narcotics were observed by the informant. Thus, the affidavit was defective and was insufficient to support the issuance of the search warrant in this case."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Green · Harrelson v. State