63 Md. App. 1 - Yeagy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]here the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant’s request. In the event that at that hearing the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and with the affidavit’s false material set to one side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 129 Md. App. 221 - Rosenberg v. State · 87 Md. App. 659 - Wilson v. State

2. “Even though probable cause may exist initially, it becomes stale when the facts and information in the affidavit are ‘so remote from the date of the affidavit as to render it improbable that the alleged violation of law authorizing the search was extant at the time the application for the search warrant was made.’ Peterson [v. State], 281 Md. [309] at 314, 379 A.2d 164 [1977], quoting Garza v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 147, 149 , 48 S.W.2d 625 (1932). Remoteness does not depend solely upon the lapse of a particular amount of time, such as ten days, or two months; it requires determination of the ‘likelihood that the evidence sought is still in place’ in light of ‘the character of the crime ... of the criminal ... of the place to be searched____’ Andresen v. State, 24 Md.App. 128, 172 , 331 A.2d 78 , cert. denied, 274 Md. 725 (1975), aff'd, 427 U.S. 463 , 96 S.Ct. 2737 , 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976); Davidson v. State, 54 Md.App. 323, 331-32 , 458 A.2d 875 (1983).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 87 Md. App. 640 - State v. Jacobs

3. “To challenge an omission under Franks, supra, the accused must make a preliminary showing that it was made intentionally or with reckless disregard for accuracy; a negligent or innocent mistake does not suffice. United States v. Martin, 615 F.2d [318, 329 (5th Cir.1980)]; United States v. House, 604 F.2d [1135, 1139 (8th Cir.1979)]. This must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 153 Md. App. 601 - Fitzgerald v. State