State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... Generally, searches may be conducted only pursuant to a warrant which has been issued by a judge on the basis of probable cause. U.S. Constitution, Amendment 4; Louisiana Constitution Article 1 § 5; C.Cr.P. Article 162; State v. Brady, 585 So.2d 524 (La.1991). A recognized exception to the warrant requirement for entry into a building is a quick search of the premises to determine the 1 [¡presence of persons in need, the presence of a perpetrator who might still remain on the premises, or to prevent the destruction of evidence. Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17 , 105 S.Ct. 409 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 246 ] (1984); United States v. Rubin, 474 F.2d 262 (3rd Cir.1974 [1973]) cert, denied, 414 U.S. 833 , 94 S.Ct. 173 , 38 L.Ed.2d 68 (1973); State v. Roebuck, 530 So.2d 1242 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988), writs denied, 531 So.2d 764 (1988). Probable cause alone does not justify the entry into an area otherwise protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Louisiana Constitution, Article 1 § 5. There is a justified intrusion of a protected area if there is probable cause to arrest and exigent circumstances. State v. Rudolph, 369 So.2d 1320 (La.1979). Exigent circumstances are exceptional circumstances which, when coupled with probable cause, justify an entry into a “protected” area that without those exceptional circumstances would be unlawful. Examples of exigent circumstances have been found to be escape of the defendant, avoidance of a possible violent confrontat”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sterling · State v. Kirk

2. “(1) The degree of urgency involved and the amount of time necessary to obtain a warrant; (2) A reasonable belief that the contraband is about to be removed; (3) The possibility of danger to police officers guarding the site of the contraband while a search warrant is sought; (4) Information indicating the possessors of the contraband were aware that the police were on their trail; and (5) The ready destruction of the contraband and the knowledge and efforts to dispose of narcotics and escape are characteristic behavior of persons engaged in narcotics traffic.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sterling · State v. Kirk