83 Wash. 2d 49 - State v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
91 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably 106 Wash. 2d 54 - State v. Gunwall (1986), 95 Wash. 2d 898 - State v. Seagull (1981)
91 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 Mapp v. Ohio · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Jones v. United States · Beck v. State of Ohio
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`Good reason for the issuance of a search warrant does not necessarily mean proof of criminal activity but merely probable cause to believe it may have occurred.'”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“Warrants may be and frequently are sought by police officers under conditions of the utmost urgency with little time or opportunity for consultation with counsel. Supporting documents may have been hurriedly drafted by laymen while in the crucial phase of an investigation under the urgent necessity of obtaining the evidence before it is removed or destroyed. Thus, in order to preserve the evidence from imminent destruction, or obviate an impending crime, or to prevent further criminal activity, circumstances may demand that the application for a search warrant be presented to a judicial officer at late and unusual hours without counsel or prior consultation with counsel. The constitutional provisions against unlawful searches and seizures are not designed to discourage police and investigative officers from seeking the assessment of independent judicial officers, nor to compel the police to take counsel with them at all stages of their investigations. Rather, it is the design of the constitutions to encourage investigating officers to seek the intervention of judicial officers, to require whenever and wherever it is reasonably feasible that the existence or want of probable cause to enter and search a householder's domicile be decided prima facie by a judicial officer and not by officers of the executive branch. . . . In essence, if in the considered judgment of the judicial officer there has been made an adequate showing under oath of circumstances going beyond suspicion and”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[r]ecital of some of the underlying circumstances in the affidavit is essential if the magistrate is to perform his detached function and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police”
3 later decisions 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.