616 So. 2d 949 - Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The United States Supreme Court, in Sibron v. New York , 392 U.S. 40 , 88 S.Ct. 1889 , 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), has stated: " 'Deliberately furtive actions and flight at the approach of strangers or law officers are strong indicia of mens rea , and when coupled with specific knowledge on the part of the officer relating the suspect to the evidence of crime, they are proper factors to be considered in the decision to make an arrest. Brinegar v. United States , 338 U.S. 160 [ 69 S.Ct. 1302 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 ] (1949); Husty v. United States , 282 U.S. 694 [ 51 S.Ct. 240 , 75 L.Ed. 629 ] (1931); see Henry v. United States , 361 U.S. 98 , 103 [ 80 S.Ct. 168 , 171 , 4 L.Ed.2d 134 ] (1959).' " 392 U.S. at 66-67 , 88 S.Ct. at 1904 -05 . See also Molina v. State , 533 So.2d 701 , 707 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1086 , 109 S.Ct. 1547 , 103 L.Ed.2d 851 (1989). " 'Thus, if the police see a person in possession of a highly suspicious object or some object which is not identifiable but which, because of other circumstances, is reasonably suspected to be contraband, and then observe that person make an apparent attempt to conceal that object from police review, probable cause is then present.' "W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.6(d) at 58 (2d ed. 1987). See also Lewis v. State , 518 So.2d 214 , 218 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 667 So. 2d 1339 - Ex Parte Tucker · 701 So. 2d 47 - Carroll v. State

2. “`The purpose for requiring that the chain of custody be shown is to establish to a reasonable probability that there has been no tampering with the evidence.' " Jones v. State, 616 So.2d 949, 951 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (quoting Williams v. State, 505 So.2d 1252, 1253 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), aff'd, 505 So.2d 1254 (Ala.1987)). "`”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 747 So. 2d 351 - Nix v. State · 869 So. 2d 509 - Harrison v. State

3. “"`Probable cause deals with probabilities, not legal technicalities. It is grounded upon those practical, factual considerations of everyday life upon which reasonable and prudent men act. Brinegar v. United States , 338 U.S. 160 , 69 S.Ct. 1302 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1948). Thus, probability and not proof necessary to convict for criminal activities is the standard for determining probable cause. Yielding v. State , 371 So.2d 951 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 371 So.2d 962 (Ala. 1979).' " Carter v. State , 405 So.2d 957 , 959 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 405 So.2d 962 (Ala. 1981). "`Probable cause does not require an officer to compile an airtight case against a suspect.' Williams v. State , 440 So.2d 1139 , 1145 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). However, the officer must have more than a mere suspicion that the suspect committed a crime. Moore v. State , 415 So.2d 1210 , 1216 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1041 , 103 S.Ct. 459 , 74 L.Ed.2d 610 (1982). The issue of probable cause `must be determined from the facts of each case.' Waldrop v. State , 462 So.2d 1021 , 1029 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1019 . 105 S.Ct. 3483 , 87 L.Ed.2d 618 (1985)."”

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