Ramsey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 30 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. Allege deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth by the affi-ant, specifically pointing out the portion of the affidavit claimed to be false. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient, and the allegations must be more than conclusory. 2. Accompany these allegations with an offer of proof stating the supporting reasons. Affidavits or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished. If not, the absence of written support of the allegations must be satis- faetorily explained. 11 3. Show that when the portion of the affidavit alleged to be false is excised from the affidavit, the remaining content is insufficient to support issuance of the warrant.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Jorge Louis Verde · Hackleman v. State

2. ““. .. IT IS THE BELIEF OF AFFIANT, AND HE HEREBY CHARGES AND ACCUSES, THAT SAID SUSPECTED PARTY HAS POSSESSION OF AND IS CONCEALING AT SAID SUSPECTED PLACE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED stolen property TO WIT: 1. Kirby vacuum cleaner and attachments 2. Sterling silver champagne cooler 3. Sterling silver water pitcher 4. Two sterling silver sugar shakers 5. Large sterling silver tray 6. Twelve sterling silver drinking cups 7. Sterling silver ladle 8. Sterling silver punch bowl 9. Sterling silver tea service set 10. Two sterling silver candle holders 11. Sterling silver pitcher and bread tray AFFIANT HAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SAID BELIEF BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS, TO WIT: Affiant officer was told by a confidential informant that said informant was taken to the Stor-Safe Corporation storage units, storage locker number 182 by Frichard Dow within the past ten days and that Dow took informant inside of locker number 182 and showed him a large quantity of camera equipment, plus all of the items listed in section number three of this warrant. Informant further advised affiant officer that all of the above mentioned silver and the Kirby vacuum cleaner were stored together in a separate section away from the other items within the storage locker. Informant also told affiant that Dow told him not to repeat anything that was said during his visit to locker number 182, nor to disclose any information about anything that he had seen there. Said informant further advised affiant that he beli”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Spencer v. State · Dow v. State

3. ““If the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct, then evidence obtained from a search should be suppressed only if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may be properly charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.””

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