82 Ohio App. 3d 434 - State v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably 108 Ohio App. 3d 598 - State v. Mays (1996), United States v. Warren (1994)
3 federal appellate · 90 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 Illinois v. Gates · Franks v. Delaware · Beck v. State of Ohio · United States v. Ventresca · Roviaro v. United States
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a preliminary suppression hearing, where the issue for determination is not guilt or innocence but probable cause to issue a warrant, the desire to test the credibility and reliability of an informer who has been vouched for by the police is not a consideration that warrants disclosure. McCray v. Illinois (1967), 386 U.S. 300 , 304 * * *; State v. Beck (1963), 175 Ohio St. 73 * * *, reversed on other grounds (1964), 379 U.S. 89 * * *. The issue there is the good faith * * * of the police in reasonably relying on the informer's information, and the identity of the informer or [his] testimony is not relevant to that determination.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The basis of knowledge and the veracity of the person supplying the hearsay information are circumstances that must be considered in determining the value of the information and whether probable cause exists. George , 45 Ohio St.3d at 329 , 544 N.E.2d 640 . The fact that the information provided is double hearsay is relevant to its value in determining probable cause, but hearsay testimony will not per se invalidate a judge's determination of probable cause. State v. Taylor (1992), 82 Ohio App. 3d 434 , 442 , 612 N.E.2d 728 . The fact that the affiant's knowledge may be the result of double or multiple levels of hearsay does not, per se, invalidate the resulting search warrant. State v. Jones (Sept. 18, 1985), Hamilton App. No. C-840767, citing United States v. Jenkins (C.A.6, 1975), 525 F.2d 819 ." State v. Prater , Warren App. No. CA2001-12-114, 2002-Ohio-4487 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In reviewing the sufficiency of probable cause in an affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant issued by a magistrate, neither a trial court nor an appellate court should substitute its judgment for that of the magistrate by conducting a de novo determination as to whether the affidavit contains sufficient probable cause upon which that court would issue the search warrant. Rather, the duty of a reviewing court is *Page 11 simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. In conducting any after-the-fact scrutiny of an affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant, trial and appellate courts should accord great deference to the magistrate's determination of probable cause, and doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be resolved in favor of upholding the warrant.”
1 later decision 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.