59 Md. App. 169 - Barrow v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 2007
14 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Wade · Carroll v. United States · Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers
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.
“A motor vehicle may be searched without a warrant where police have “probable cause in the constitutional context to believe that the vehicle contains the fruits, instrumentalities, or other evidence of crime.” Mobley and King v. State, 270 Md. 76, 80 [ 310 A.2d 803 ] (1973) (and cases cited therein), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 975 [ 94 S.Ct. 2003 , 40 L.Ed.2d 564 ] (1974). This exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement is justified because the exigent circumstances caused by the inherent movability of a motor vehicle makes the obtaining of a warrant impracticable. Id. at 80-81 [ 310 A.2d 803 ] (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 459-60 [ 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2034 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 ] (1971); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 [ 45 S.Ct. 280, 285 , 69 L.Ed. 543 ] (1925)). Probable cause exists for a warrantless automobile search when facts and circumstances known to police are such “as would warrant a man of reasonable caution [to believe] that the vehicle contained articles lawfully subject to seizure.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation. Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.