652 So. 2d 666 - State v. Nicholas’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 2010
4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Leon · Jones v. United States · Gooding v. United States · State v. Gamberella · 357 So. 2d 1121 - State v. Murray
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), the state argues the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should apply. In Leon , the United States Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule should not be applied so as to bar the use in the prosecution's case-in-chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in an objectively reasonable good faith reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be invalid under the Fourth Amendment. Not all violations of statutory restrictions are deemed constitutional violations; and the exclusionary rule does not apply to all non-constitutional violations of statutes. [citations omitted]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... merely because a violation of article 163 occurs (when a search is conducted after dark at 9:30 p.m. without specific authorization for a nighttime search), suppression of the evidence is not required. " Nicholas, 652 So.2d at 669 (emphasis added). Nevertheless, in addition to this holding, the court discusses the good faith of the officers in question, though briefly, and finds that the officers probably "... overlooked or were unaware of the requirement of article 163.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A search warrant relating to offenses involving controlled dangerous substances may be authorized to be served at any time of the day or night if the judge or magistrate issuing the warrant is satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that grounds exist for the warrant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.