748 So. 2d 409 - State v. Miskell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 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.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harris v. St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's Office · 63 So. 3d 1113 - State v. Robinson

2. “... it is well recognized that a police officer's past experience, training, and common sense may be considered in determining if the inferences drawn from the facts presented were reasonable.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 871 So. 2d 575 - State v. Robinson · 757 So. 2d 63 - State v. Taylor

3. “The showing of probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant was well made through the confidential informant’s detailed knowledge of defendant’s activities. Moreover, Detective Harrison had information garnered from his personal observation of the alleged illegal goings-on at defendant’s residence. Not only did the detective observe the confidential informant’s controlled buy from the defendant at 6716 Tara Lane, the police officer watched defendant conduct a drug transaction from the front door of his residence and two more near an automobile parked in front of the residence just prior to entering to execute the warrant. It was at this latter time that Detective Harrison observed defendant furnish what appeared to be drugs from a tobacco can that he carried on his person. Although Richards, 520 U.S. at 392 , 117 S.Ct. at 1421 , recognized that not Levery drug investigation will pose the risk of the destruction of evidence, it is clear in the present ease that the evidence showed that the defendant’s possession of the drugs on his person in readily saleable quantities established the requisite concern for the preservation of evidence if advance warning of entry were given. The determination of reasonableness is further fortified by the presence of the burglar bars on the main entrance of the building where drug sales were conducted up to the time just prior to execution of the search warrant. See United States v. Hawkins, 102 F.3d 973, 976 (8th Cir.1996). Given this ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 785 So. 2d 1053 - State v. Stewart