Metler v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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. ““[t]he magistrate is not required to determine whether in fact the items to be searched for are located at the premises to be searched, but only whether there is reasonable ground to believe they are there.” (citation omitted)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Van Buren v. State · Stuart v. State

2. “Unlike hearsay declarants drawn from a criminal milieu, the [victims] were ordinary citizens and victims of an extortion attempt who were cooperating with the police out of concern for the public and for their own safety. Further, their hearsay statements were verified by the two extortion notes, one of which was delivered to the [victim’s] residence while the police were on the premises. The reliability of such “citizen informants” need not be established prior to the admission of their hearsay declarations before the grand jury. See Erickson v. State, 507 P.2d 508, 517-18 (Alaska 1973).”

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

3. “‘[G]reat deference’ should be given the findings of the district judge issuing the search warrant. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419 [ 89 S.Ct. 584, 590 ], ... 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). Further, ‘the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants.’ United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109 [ 85 S.Ct. 741, 746 ], ... 13 L.Ed.2d 684, 689 (1965); Keller v. State, 543 P.2d 1211, 1220 (Alaska 1975).”

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