Vinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Whether the circumstances recited in an affidavit offered in support of an application for a search warrant are such that the probable cause that might once have been demonstrated by them has grown `stale' is a matter that `must be determined by the circumstances of each case.' Sgro v. United States , 287 U.S. 206 , 53 S.Ct. 138 , 77 L.Ed. 260 (1932). "`Where the affidavit recites a mere isolated violation it would not be unreasonable to imply that probable cause dwindles rather quickly with the passage of time. However, where the affidavit properly recites facts indicating activity of a protracted and continuous nature, a course of conduct, the passage of time becomes less significant.' " United States v. Johnson , 461 F.2d 285 , 287 (10th Cir. 1972)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harrelson v. State · 31 So. 3d 728 - CRF v. State

2. ““1 “Probable cause must be determined by an analysis of ‘the totality of the circumstances.’ Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). In determining whether to issue a search warrant, the issuing magistrate is to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of the person supplying the information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” ’ “Loggins v. State, 771 So.2d 1070, 1080 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 771 So.2d 1093 (Ala.2000) (quoting Marks v. State, 575 So.2d 611, 614-15 (Ala.Crim.App.1990)). [[Image here]] “Whether the circumstances recited in an affidavit offered in support of an application for a search warrant are such that the probable cause that might once have been demonstrated by them has grown ‘stale’ is a matter that ‘must be determined by the circumstances of each case.’ Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206 , 53 S.Ct. 138 , 77 L.Ed. 260 (1932). “ ‘Where the affidavit recites a mere isolated violation it would not be unreasonable to imply that probable cause dwindles rather quickly with the passage of time. However, where the affidavit properly recites facts indicating activity of a protracted and continuous nature, a course of conduct, the passage of time becomes less significant.’ “United States v. Johnson, 461 F.2d 285, 287 (10th Cir.19”

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

3. ““The evidence presented at the hearing on Vinson’s motion to suppress consisted of the testimony of the officers who executed the warrant. That evi dence was undisputed. Accordingly, we review the trial court’s decision to grant the motion to suppress under a ‘de novo’ standard of review. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); State v. Hill, 690 So.2d 1201 (Ala.1996); and State v. Smith, 785 So.2d 1169 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). We apply this standard to the general question whether the affidavit of Agent Guy Warren was sufficient to supply probable cause to issue the warrant.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex parte State