7 Md. App. 18 - Haley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

59 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “even if it was parked on the property on which the premises were located”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 12 Wash. App. 640 - State v. Cottrell · 292 So. 2d 435 - Dunn v. State

2. ““With regard to the evidence found in the house, as to indictment No. 34985, under which each appellant was convicted and sentenced both for possession and control of marijuana, and as to the individual indictments charging each of them separately, we do not think that the evidence was sufficient to establish that any of them were ‘possessed’ of the drugs and paraphernalia found on the premises or that those articles were ‘under the control’ of any of them as those terms are defined. We reach this conclusion in considering that none of the appellants had any proprietary interest in the premises or lived there; that it was not shown, outside of the search warrant, that any of. them had been on the premises at any time in the past; that there was no evidence how long they had been on the premises prior to the arrival of the police; that the police entered the premises and made the arrests ‘immediately’ upon their arrival — ‘we knocked on the door and said “Police”. No one answered. And we forcibly entered the premises with a maul at this time.’ The lapse of time between the knocking and entering was only such time ‘it takes to hit the door twice with a maul, pretty rapidly * * * thirty seconds, it could have been five to ten (seconds)’; that the articles were not in the living room but in a dresser in a bedroom under clothing, under a mattress in another bedroom, in a closet in the kitchen; that they were not found in close proximity to the appellants; and that there was no dir”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Garrison v. State

3. ““The search of ... [a person] and the seizure of evidence found on his person would be valid only if made under the authority of the warrant or as incident to a legal arrest outside of the warrant by reason that the officers had probable cause to believe that a felony had been committed and that the arrestee committed it or had probable cause to believe that a misdemeanor had been or was being committed in their presence and that the misdemeanant committed it or that the search was made with the voluntary consent of the person searched.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 19 Md. App. 149 - Sibiski v. State