People v. Reeves’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

263 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 275 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is, of course, highly commendable that law enforcement officials should desire that all persons violating the law should be arrested and punished. But it is of even greater importance, that in seeking to attain that highly desirable end, law enforcement officials should not trample upon or disregard fundamental constitutional rights. The end does not justify the means. When the desire to punish the lawbreaker runs afoul of constitutional rights, it is the former that must give way. The courts should be alert to see that this is so. It is a fundamental concept of our system of criminal justice that it is better for society that a few criminals escape, than it is for government to use illegal means to accomplish their convictions. For that reason the court cannot and should not struggle to escape the obvious mandate of the constitutional provisions. That is the problem here involved. Constitutional considerations determine that the search and arrests were illegal. Therefore, convictions based upon the illegal search and arrests cannot stand.’’ (People v. Reeves, supra, 61 Cal.2d 268, 275 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 229 Cal. App. 2d 814 - People v. Pereda

2. “required in order to give substance to the rights conferred by the provisions of our federal and state Constitutions prohibiting [illegal] seizures. (U.S. Const., 4th Amend., see Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 84 A.L.R. 2d 933 ]; Cal.Const., art. I, § 19, see People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434 [ 282 P.2d 905 , 50 A.L.R.2d 513 ].)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 6 Cal. 3d 150 - Kaplan v. Superior Court

3. “If this cigarette were `found' legally this might constitute corroboration of the information given by the anonymous informer — it would corroborate the informers' statement that McDonald was presently possessed of marijuana, and this might very well constitute a basis for believing that if McDonald was possessed of marijuana, Reeves might also be.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 19 Cal. App. 3d 58 - People v. Shipstead