Bland v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In order to issue a proper search warrant, a magistrate must have a ‘substantial basis’ for concluding that probable cause exists. A magistrate’s determination of probable cause should be paid great deference. “[Article 1, § 4 of t]he Wyoming Constitution requires that a search warrant be issued only upon a showing of probable cause. Probable cause must be supported by an affidavit which supplies the issuing officer with sufficient information to make an independent judgment that probable cause exists for the warrant. The affidavit in support of the warrant, therefore, must include more than bare conclusions of the affiant. Facts which lead the affiant to believe that a warrant is justified must be presented in the affidavit. The test for determining the existence of probable cause is whether a factual situation is sufficient to warrant a reasonably cautious or prudent man to believe that a crime was being committed or that one had been committed. This test requires that the issuing officer weigh and consider all of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a warrant.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Southworth v. State · Lee v. State

2. “The United States Supreme Court in Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478 , 86 S.Ct. at 1630 , and this Court in Priestley v. State, 446 P.2d 405, 407-08 (Wyo.1968), framed the relevant inquiry: “Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence. The fundamental import of the privilege while an individual is in custody is not whether he is allowed to talk to the police without the benefit of warnings and counsel, but whether he can be interrogated. There is no requirement that police stop a person who enters a police station and states that he wishes to confess.... Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by [Miranda].””

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

3. ““By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.””

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