State v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the use of optical aids in the nature of binoculars, telescopes and the like is not itself determinative of the admissibility in evidence of the product of the observation; (2) the primary determinative fact is the presence or absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy of the person whose conduct, property, or documents is observed; (3) reasonable expectation of privacy in the context here involved is tested by the extent to which tire person had exposed his conduct, property, or documents to public view by the naked eye; (4) if the purpose of the optically aided view is to permit clandestine police surveillance of that which could be seen from a more obvious vantage point without the optical aid, there is no unconstitutional intrusion; and (5) if the purpose of the optical aid is to view that which could not be seen without it, there is.”

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

2. “We agree with appellants that the anonymous telephonic tip received by the police that a gambling operation was in progress in Apartment 707 without more is insufficient to support a finding of probable cause to conduct the search. Our conclusion is easily reached as the record is devoid of any of the underlying circumstances from which the officer can conclude that the informant was credible and his information reliable, and is devoid of any of the underlying circumstances which explain how the informant knew that appellants were committing a crime. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969); State v. Delaney, 58 Haw. 19 , 563 P.2d 990 (1977); State v. Davenport, 55 Haw. 90 , 516 P.2d 65 (1973).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 7 Haw. App. 28 - State v. Nakachi

3. “if the purpose of the telescopic aid is to view that which could not be seen without it, it is a constitutional invasion.” Id. at 517 , 617 P.2d at 573 . That same year, the supreme court decided State v. Knight, 63 Haw. 90 , 621 P.2d 370 (1980) where the police used”

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