State v. Salvatore’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
July 2007
most recently cited
24 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Franks v. Delaware · Rakas v. Illinois · Jones v. United States · State v. Golding
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the Franks decision referred only to false statements in the affidavit, [Connecticut has] held that material omissions from such an affidavit also fall within the rule. . . . Not all omissions, however, even if intentional, will invalidate an affidavit. . . . In fact, an affiant may omit facts that he believes to be either immaterial or unsubstantiated. . . . Thus, before a defendant is entitled to a Franks hearing for an alleged omission, he must make the substantial preliminary showing that the information was (1) omitted with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether it made, the affidavit misleading to the issuing judge, and (2) material to the determination of probable cause. . . . Even if the affiant picks and chooses the information that he includes in the affidavit, there is no Franks violation if, had the magistrate been so advised, he still would have been justified in issuing the warrant. . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[W]e have a longstanding rule that there is an underlying presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting a warrant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[C]laims on appeal that are inadequately briefed are deemed abandoned.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.