State v. Kealoha’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There are critical differences between language commanding search for and seizure of “articles of personal property tending to establish ... identification ...” and the wording of the Honore, Wiley, and Andresen warrants. In Honore and Wiley broad general descriptions of the articles were particularized by specific examples of what was sought. Although the warrants were not models of specificity, the examples served to guide the executing officer and reviewing court in determining what items were or were not to be the objects of search and seizure. Absent such signposts, officers may “[seize]... one thing under a warrant describing another.” [Citation omitted.] Andresen may be distinguished because broad language was substantially narrowed by reading the phrase “together with other fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of crime...” in conjunction with language focusing the permitted search on documents related to a particular parcel of land. No examples or other limiting language that could have effectively circumscribed the search and seizure of the executing officer were extant in this case. The breadth of the search the officer assumed was sanctioned is underscored by the wide variety of personal property listed in the police inventory .... The language in question too closely resembles the wording of a forbidden “general warrant” for us to ratify a seizure effected thereunder.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Rothman

2. ““Although the warrant was defective ... , it does not follow that it was invalid as a whole. Such a conclusion would mean that the seizure of certain articles, even though proper if viewed separately, must be condemned merely because the warrant was defective with respect to other articles. The invalid portions of the warrant are severable from the authorization relating to the named books, .... The search for and seizure of these books, if otherwise valid, were not rendered illegal by the defects concerning other articles. 55 Cal. 2d at 797 , 362 P.2d at 52 , 13 Cal. Rptr. at 420 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 116 Wis. 2d 443 - State v. Noll

3. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures and invasions of privacy shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Endo