State v. Anderton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e conclude that it is wiser to abandon the “two-pronged test” established by our decisions in Aguilar and Spinelli . In its place we reaffirm the totality of the circumstances analysis that traditionally has informed probable cause determinations. The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bailey · State v. Anderson

2. ““1) defendant’s presence at the time the drugs were found, with emphasis on the fact that the drugs were in plain or open view; 2) the defendant’s access to the drugs; 3) the proximity of defendant to the drugs; 4) evidence indicating that the ‘defendant was participating with others in the mutual use and enjoyment of the contraband’; and 5) incriminating statements.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Spanish Fork City v. Bryan · State v. Layman

3. “constituted nothing more than the failure to perform a ministerial act which did not affect the validity of the search warrant and the search conducted thereunder,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2009 UT App 73 - State v. Dominguez · State v. Dominguez