Money 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. ““ ‘The present test for determining whether an informant’s tip establishes probable cause is the flexible totality-of-the-circumstances test of Illinois v. Gates, [ 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)]. The two prongs of the test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), involving informant’s veracity or reliability and his basis of knowledge, “are better understood as relevant considerations in the totality of circumstances analysis that traditionally has guided probable cause determinations: a deficiency in one may be compensated for, in determining the overall reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other, or by some other indicia of reliability.” Gates, [ 462 U.S. at 223 ,] 103 S.Ct. at 2329 .... Probable cause involves “a practical, common sense decision whether, given all the circum stances, ... 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.” Gates, [ 462 U.S. at 238 ,] 103 S.Ct. at 2332 .’ “Pugh v. State, 493 So.2d 388, 392 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), aff'd, 493 So.2d 393 (Ala.1986). “ ‘Reference to a confidential informant’s “track record” of past performances is a viable means of determining his credibility.’ Reese v. State, 456 So.2d 341, 349 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. ”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Jenkins · Chambers v. State

2. ““ ‘Reference to a confidential informant’s “track record” of past performances is a viable means of determining his credibility.’ Reese v. State, 456 So.2d 341, 349 (Ala.Crim.App.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 838 , 104 S.Ct. 127 , 78 L.Ed.2d 124 (1983). See also Moynes v. State, 568 So.2d 392, 393 (Ala.Cr.App.1990); Carter v. State, 435 So.2d 137, 139 (Ala.Crim.App.1982). An informant’s reliability may be verified by other law enforcement officers who have worked with the informant on prior occasions. See Usery v. State, 668 So.2d 919, 921 (Ala.Crim.App.1995). See also Ex parte Boyd, 542 So.2d 1276, 1284 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 883 , 110 S.Ct. 219 , 107 L.Ed.2d 172 (1989) (probable cause may be established from the collective knowledge of the police, citing United States v. Hawkins, 595 F.2d 751 , 752-53 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 910 , 99 S.Ct. 2005 , 60 L.Ed.2d 380 (1979)). In addition, corroboration supplied by the personal observations of the police officers lends support to the reliability and veracity of the informant. See Moynes, 568 So.2d 392 ; Dale v. State, 466 So.2d 196 (Ala.Crim.App.1985).””

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

3. “the requirement in Rule 3.10[, Ala.R.Crim.P.] that the search warrant be endorsed with the hour of its issuance is ministerial or directory in nature”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 71 So. 3d 717 - State v. CBD