772 So. 2d 1200 - Blake v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"A police officer's detecting the smell of raw or burned marijuana coming from a particular place or person is sufficient to provide probable cause to search that place or person. See Blake v. State , 772 So.2d 1200 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000) (holding that the odor of burning marijuana emanating from the defendant's automobile constituted probable cause to search the defendant and his passenger and to arrest either for possession of marijuana); State v. Betterton , 527 So.2d 743 , 745-46 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986); State v. Mathews , 597 So.2d 235 , 237 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992). In Mathews , the Court of Criminal Appeals stated: "`"It appears to be generally accepted that the smell of marijuana in its raw form or when burning is sufficiently distinctive to come within the rule of . . . Johnson [v. United States , 333 U.S. 10 , 68 S.Ct. 367 , 92 L.Ed. 436 . . . (1948), that probable cause to believe that an illegal substance is present may be established by smell]. Consequently, the courts have found probable cause to search when the distinctive odor of marijuana is found emanating from a particular place and have likewise found probable cause to arrest when the odor was detected coming from a particular person." "`"The odor of fresh marijuana or marijuana smoke, standing alone, has . . . been held or recognized as providing probable cause to conduct warrantless searches of . . . persons and their clothing."' " 597 So.2d at 237 (alterations in original; citations omitted). "In Blake , the Cou”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gargus · 815 So. 2d 578 - Adams v. State

2. “"`It appears to be generally accepted that the smell of marijuana in its raw form or when burning is sufficiently distinctive to come within the rule of ... Johnson [v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 , 68 S.Ct. 367 , 92 L.Ed. 436 ... (1948), that probable cause to believe that an illegal substance is present may be established by smell]. Consequently, the courts have found probable cause to search when the distinctive odor of marijuana is found emanating from a particular place and have likewise found probable cause to arrest when the odor was detected coming from a particular person.' "`The odor of fresh marijuana or marijuana smoke, standing alone, has ... been held or recognized as providing probable cause to conduct warrantless searches of ... persons and their clothing.'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gargus · 815 So. 2d 578 - Adams v. State

3. “"`Whether there is probable cause [to] merit a warrantless search and seizure is to be determined by the totality of the circumstances. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). "Probable cause exists where all the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to conclude that an offense has been or is being committed and that contraband would be found in the place to be searched." Sheridan v. State, 591 So.2d 129, 130 (Ala.Crim.App.1991).' " State v. Stallworth, 645 So.2d 323, 325 [(Ala.Crim.App.1994)].... `When we speak of probable cause, we are dealing with probabilities which are factual and practical considerations of everyday experience.' [ Sterling v. State, 421 So.2d 1375, 1381 (Ala.Crim.App.1982)]."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 815 So. 2d 578 - Adams v. State