State v. Endo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The cause of a search warrant being facially expired when the search is executed may be the mistake of the officer who applied for it, the judge who signed it, and/or the officer who executed it. Does the Hawaii Constitution excuse any of these mistakes? Balancing the uniqueness of Hawaii’s Constitution, the specificity requirements imposed by HRPP Rule 41(c), the desire to motivate the officials who prepare, sign, and execute search warrants not to prepare, sign, and execute facially expired search warrants, and the desire and ability to avoid searches pursuant to facially expired search warrants, against the State’s desire to have the judiciary validate searches pursuant to search warrants that are facially expired when the searches are made because the officers who applied for them, the judges who signed them, and/or the officers who executed them made a mistake, we conclude that the Hawaii Constitution does not permit the validation of searches pursuant to search warrants that are facially expired when the searches are made.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McKnight

2. “Our willingness to afford greater protection of individual privacy rights than is provided on the federal level arises from our view that the right to be free of ‘unreasonable’ searches and seizures under article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution is enforceable by a rule of reason which requires that governmental intrusions into the personal privacy of citizens of this State be no greater in intensity than absolutely necessary. Thus, each proffered justification for a warrantless search must meet the test of necessity inherent in the concept of reasonableness. Moreover, unlike its federal counterpart, article I, section 7, specifically protects against invasions of privacy. Although we acknowledge that the Hawaii exclusionary rule serves the valuable purpose of deterring governmental officials from circumventing the protections afforded by the Hawaii Constitution, we now pronounce that an equally valuable purpose of the exclusionary rule under article I, section 7, is to protect the privacy rights of our citizens.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McKnight.

3. “requires that governmental intrusion into the personal privacy of citizens of this State be no greater in intensity than absolutely necessary”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Heapy