Dancy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Dowthitt v. State (1996), Livingston v. State (1987)
2 federal appellate · 87 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Franks v. Delaware · Florida v. Royer · United States v. Mendenhall · Blanton v. General Electric Credit Corp.
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where a person voluntarily accompanies police officers, who are then only in the process of investigating a crime, to a certain location, and he knows or should know that the police officers suspect he may have committed or may be implicated in committing the crime, we are unable to hold that under the circumstances such a person is restrained of his freedom of movement. Under those circumstances, he is not in custody.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“3. It is the belief of affiants, and they hereby charge and accuse, that said suspected party has possession of and is concealing at said suspected location a controlled substance, namely: Methamphetamine 4. Affiants have probable cause for said belief by reason of the following facts, to-wit: That affiant is a Peace Officer in and for The State of Texas and is currently employed by the Ector County Sheriffs Department in the capacity of Investigator assigned to the Intelligence Section. That during the course of affiants employment as a Peace Officer in and for the State of Texas, affiant has received training and experience in the execution of search and arrest warrants and has personally assisted in the execution of over (50) fifty search and arrest warrants. That on the date of 03-12-91 affiant was contacted by a confidiential, [sic] credible and reliable informant, whose name and identity must remain unknown for security reasons, and was advised by the said informant that the suspect party has at the suspect location a quantity of controlled substance, namely, methamphetamine in violation of The Texas Controlled Substance Act. That that affiant believes and has reason to believe the said informant as the informant is not a first time informant and has given this affiant information in the past that was known to be true, reliable and correct. That the said informant has given affiant information in the past that was checked by affiant and found to be true, reliable and co”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Long v. State · State v. Morgan“• Allege deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth by the affiant, specifically pointing out the portions of the affidavit claimed to be false; • Make an offer of proof stating the supporting reasons; • Show that when the portions of the affidavit alleged to be false are excised from the affidavit, the remaining content is insufficient to support issuance of the warrant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.