State v. Wright’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. “In the instant case, unlike Kirk, the detectives observed an unidentified woman looking at their surveillance position, and the woman had a conversation with both the defendants, which then caused the defendant Richardson to run into the residence at 2802 Freret Street. Prior to the woman observing their surveillance position, the detectives observed both the defendants conduct hand-to-hand drug transactions on the front porch of the residence on Freret Street. The detectives had reason to believe their surveillance position had been made known to the defendants, and that the defendants knowing they had been observed by police officers would destroy evidence. We find that the detectives had probable cause to arrest the defendants and exigent circumstances to justify entering the residence to ensure no evidence was destroyed until a search warrant could be obtained. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress the evidence. This assignment of error is without merit.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Doussan · State v. Fournette

2. “There is a justified intrusion of a protected area if there is probable cause to arrest and exigent circumstances. State v. Rudolph, 369 So.2d 1320, 1326 (La.1979), ce rt. den., Rudolph v. Louisiana, 454 U.S. 1142 , 102 S.Ct. 1001 , 71 L.Ed.2d 294 (1982). Exigent circumstances are exceptional circumstances which, when coupled with probable cause, justify an entry into a “protected” area that, without those exceptional circumstances, would be unlawful. Examples of exigent circumstances have been found to be escape of the defendant, avoidance of a possible violent confrontation that could cause injury to the officers and the public, and the destruction of evidence. State v. Hathaway, 411 So.2d 1074, 1079 (La.1982).”

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

3. “(1) The degree of urgency involved and the amount of time necessary to obtain a warrant; (2) A reasonable belief that the contraband is about to be removed; (3) The possibility of danger to police officers guarding the site of the contraband while a search warrant is sought; (4) Information indicating the possessors of the contraband were aware that the police were on their trail; and (5) The ready destruction of the contraband and the knowledge and efforts to dispose of narcotics and escape are characteristic behavior of persons engaged in narcotics traffic.”

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