Resek v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When information is provided by a cooperative citizen, or an informant not from the criminal milieu there is less need for establishing credibility of the informant. The court in State v. Paszek, [ 50 Wis.2d 619 , 184 N.W.2d 836 (1971) ] stated: A different rationale exists for establishing the reliability of named ‘citizen-informers’ as opposed to the traditional idea of unnamed police contacts or informers who usually themselves are criminals. Information supplied to officers by the traditional police informer is not given in the spirit of a concerned citizen, but often is given in exchange for some concession, payment, or simply out of revenge against the subject. The nature of these persons and the information which they supply convey a certain impression of unreliability, and it is proper to demand that some evidence of their credibility and reliability be shown. One practical way of making such a showing is to point to accurate information which they supplied in the past. An ordinary citizen who reports a crime stands on a much different footing. He acts with an intent to aid the police in law enforcement because of a concern for society or his own safety. Since the citizen informer often provides information only once, there is little opportunity to establish credibility or reliability in the most common manner — comparison with accurate information provided in the past. We hold that a valid arrest may be made on information provided by a “citizen informer” and that th”

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

2. “The fact that the warrant was founded upon double hearsay, however, does not necessarily require the invalidation of the warrant. An affidavit for a search warrant can properly include hearsay based on hearsay provided it contains information ‘relating to (1) the reliability of the informant and (2) some knowledge of the underlying facts to support the conclusion that a crime had been committed.’ United States v. Carmichael, 489 F.2d 983, 986 (7th Cir.1973). [Citations omitted.]”

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