83 Wis. 2d 389 - State v. Benoit’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably State v. Ward (2000), State v. Multaler (2002)
30 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 Aguilar v. Texas · Jackson v. Denno · United States v. Ventresca · State Ex Rel. Goodchild v. Burke · 74 Wis. 2d 425 - State v. Lenarchick
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“apprised of sufficient facts to excite an honest belief in a reasonable mind that the objects sought are linked with the commission of a crime, and that the objects sought will be found in the place to be searched.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The suppression of sew-up confessions is based on the rule that a defendant who has not yet been charged may be taken into custody and interrogated only for a period reasonably necessary for the State to decide whether to release him or to make a formal complaint. A detention for any longer period violates due process and renders any confession obtained during the unreasonable period inadmissible. Briggs v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 313, 323 , 251 N.W.2d 12 (1977); Klonowski v. State, 68 Wis. 2d 604 , 229 N.W.2d 637 (1975); Phillips v. State, 29 Wis. 2d 521, 534-5 , 139 N.W.2d 41 (1966). However, 'A confession does not become inadmissible as a "sew-up" confession merely because the state, prior to the confession, had information sufficient to sustain a charge. The question revolves solely on the point whether the delay was inordinate and the detention illegal.' Briggs v. State, supra at 324; Krueger v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 345, 357 , 192 N.W.2d 880 (1972).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he fact that the informant was the suspect's brother who knew the place to be searched was his brother's residence, coupled with the fact that the hearing was held only twelve days after the robbery, permits a reasonable inference that the items listed in the warrant could still be found in the place to be searched.”
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.