Breitweiser v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is a fundamental principle of search and seizure law that the information given to the magistrate or judge in the application for a search warrant must be timely.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Frasier v. State · Mehring v. State

2. “* * * * . The affidavit told the magistrate that several "digital images" were downloaded from a particular computer IP address in a file sharing network. The downloads were described as "images of prepubescent females in a state of nudity, with the focus on the genital area. The images appear to be produced for sexual arousal." In a practical, non-technical point of view, any reasonable person would interpret this to mean that there were photographs of naked pre-teen girls and their genitals available from this IP address. The magistrate could reasonably conclude that child pornography may be located at the place and in the storage of the computer with that IP address. Further, the physical address of the location of the computer was sufficiently corroborated by the affiant, through the name on the mailbox and ruse of Officer Snyder to verify the residence as that of Brian Mehring. 6. The fact that the images were downloaded ten months before the warrant issued does not necessarily vitiate the probable cause. While information given to the magistrate must be timely, timeliness is not determined by a specific measure of time. ". . . (O)ur courts have not established a precise rule as to how much time may elapse between the obtaining of the facts upon which the search warrant is based and the issuance of the warrant ( cite omitted ) . . . Accordingly, probable cause is not determined by merely counting the number of days between the occurrence of the facts relied upon and the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mehring v. State

3. “First, the affidavits in Ashley merely recited a single, isolated drug transaction at the residence whereas the alleged facts in [Breitweiser’s] case revealed repeated drug activity over a period of time. Further, the affidavits in Ashley merely led to the conclusion that small amounts of marijuana were present in the residence for personal use or sale whereas the facts in the present case permitted the conclusion that there was ongoing marijuana cultivation at the residence. Finally, the officers in Ashley merely sought the warrant to search for marijuana whereas the officers in the present case sought a warrant to search not only for marijuana but also for paraphernalia and sales records pertaining to illegal drug activity. Thus, Ashley does not address the issue of staleness when evidence regarding drug paraphernalia and evidence of drug sales are also sought.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Huffines v. State