Woodward v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

73 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]hen there has been some cooperation between law enforcement agencies or between members of the same agency, the sum of the information known to the cooperating agencies or officers at the time of an arrest or search by any of the officers involved is to be considered in determining whether there was sufficient probable cause therefor.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re MEB · Canales v. State

2. ““The substance of all- the definitions” of probable cause “is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt.” McCarthy v. De Armit, 99 Pa. 63, 69 , quoted with approval in the Carroll opinion. 267 U.S. at page 161, 45 S.Ct. at page 288, 69 L.Ed. 543 , 39 A.L.R. 790 . And this “means less than evidence which would justify condemnation” or conviction, as Marshall, C.J., said for the Court more than a century ago in Locke v. United States, 7 Cranch [11 U.S.] 339, 348 [ 3 L.Ed. 364 ]. Since Marshall’s time, at any rate, it has come to mean more than bare suspicion: Probable cause exists where “the facts and circumstances within their [the officers’] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that” an offense has been or is being committed. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 , 45 S.Ct. 280, 288 , 69 L.Ed. 543 , 39 A.L.R. 790 . These long-prevailing standards seek to safeguard citizens from rash and unreasonable interferences with privacy and from unfounded charges of crime. They also seek to give fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection. Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability. The rule of probable cause ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Flores v. State · Carter v. State

3. “[P]robable cause is the sum total of layers of information and the synthesis of what the police have-heard, what they know, and what they observe as trained officers. We weigh not individual layers but the' “laminated” total. ,.. “In dealing with probable cause, ... as the very name implies,-we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life- on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jason Eugene Deleon v. State · McNairy v. State