693 So. 2d 282 - State v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In order to make an arrest, a peace officer, who has announced his authority and purpose, may break open an outer or inner door or window of any vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, dwelling or other structure, movable or immovable, where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is refused or otherwise obstructed from admittance. The peace officer need not announce his authority and purpose when to do so would imperil the arrest.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harris v. St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's Office · 757 So. 2d 63 - State v. Taylor

2. “The majority concludes that the State did not present any circumstances particular to this case to justify the unannounced entry by the police. It concludes that because the police officer testified that he and his fellow officers had no specific information concerning anyone in the residence being armed nor did they have knowledge of anyone acting as a lookout for police, nor was there any indication there was anyone in the residence who could have destroyed the evidence, the State failed to show exceptional circumstances which warrant an unannounced entry. The majority's position would, in most instances, place the police in situations of great personal risk. Despite the overwhelming evidence of the inherent dangers associated with illegal drug activities, the majority would deny the police the right to forego "knock and announce" unless the police had specific information about the dangers of the dwelling to be searched and specific information about the danger posed by its occupants. In those cases in which such specific information in [sic] unavailable, the majority would force the police into the untenable position of subjecting themselves and others to extremely high risks of injury and even death. I believe that exigent circumstances include a reasonable belief that announcement of police presence would endanger the safety of the police or others, or a reasonable belief that unannounced entry is required to prevent the destruction of evidence. When the police have a s”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 817 So. 2d 158 - State v. Nelson

3. “Our own cases have acknowledged that the common law principle of announcement is “embedded in Anglo-American law,” Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 313 , 78 S.Ct. 1190, 1198 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958), ■but we have never squarely held that this principle is an element of the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment. [footnote omitted] We now so hold. Given the longstanding common-law endorsement of the practice of announcement, we have little doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment thought that the method of an officer’s entry into a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search or seizure. 19Contrary to the decision below, we hold that in some circumstances an officer’s announced entry into a home might be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 715 So. 2d 1261 - State v. Miskell