State v. Howard’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 2013
5 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 Illinois v. Gates · 494 So. 2d 1143 - Lambrix v. State · Keyes v. Huckleberry House · Keyes v. Huckleberry House · 590 So. 2d 404 - Schmitt v. State
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The applicable burden of proof and standard of review of orders on motions to suppress are set forth in Schmitt v. State, 590 So.2d 404 (Fla.1991) (“Schmitt I”), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 964 , 112 S.Ct. 1572 , 118 L.Ed.2d 216 (1992): The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, ... there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular ease. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for ... conclud[ing] that probable cause existed. Id. at 409 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-89 , 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527, 548 (1983)). The magistrate’s determination of probable cause is entitled to great deference and must not be subjected to a de novo review in subsequent proceedings. Schmitt v. State, 563 So.2d 1095, 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (“Schmitt II”), aff'd in pertinent part, quashed in part on other grounds, 590 So.2d 404 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 964 , 112 S.Ct. 1572 , 118 L.Ed.2d 216 (1992). The supreme court has stressed that the determination of probable cause requires a fact-based analysis and that the results of that analysis will vary depending upon the context of the case. Schmitt I, 590 So.2d at 409 . The evidence in the affidavit need not be conclusive, nor must it meet the “[tjechnical requirements of elaborate specificity” impos”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.