85 Md. App. 632 - State v. Ott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On January 5, 1990, Cpl. Fogle[ [2] ] was on routine patrol near the Francis Scott Key Mall in Frederick, Maryland. At about 1:40 a.m., he observed two people sitting in a car in an otherwise deserted public parking lot in that mall. No signs were posted that said "No trespassing," nor were there any indicating that parking was prohibited after certain hours. In short, no restrictions had been posted at all. Fogle [approached] the car and its occupants because of thefts and acts of vandalism that previously had occurred in the parking lot. When he decided to do so, he saw nothing suspicious occurring in the car or anywhere else nearby. Fogle asked the two individuals their names and also asked what they were doing there. They identified themselves as Thomas Ott (seated in the driver's seat) and Sandra Sorenson (seated in the passenger's seat), and said that they were just talking. After Fogle obtained identification from each one, he radioed police headquarters to run a computer check to determine whether either of them was the subject of an outstanding warrant. Nothing in Fogle's testimony suggested that Ott's or Sorenson's responses to his initial questions were suspicious in any manner; likewise, Fogle appears to have requested written identification to run a computer check as a matter of routine. The computer check indicated that an outstanding warrant existed for Ott because of his failure to appear in a civil "non-payment" case. Fogle subsequently arrested Ott on this b”

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

2. “If the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct, then evidence obtained by a search should be suppressed only if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.”

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

3. “it is the amount of time which elapses between the time that the warrant ... becomes invalid and the time of the arrest which primarily determines whether probable cause exists for a valid warrant.”

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