861 So. 2d 414 - Foldi v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"One of the exceptions to the rule that a warrantless search is per se unreasonable is a search conducted with the consent of the owner. Rokitski v. State , 715 So.2d 859 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997); Chevere v. State , 607 So.2d 361 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992). The burden lies with the State to show that the search falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. Rokitski v. State , 715 So.2d at 861 . Whether the defendant's consent to search was voluntary is a question of fact for the trial court to determine, based upon the totality of the circumstances. Id. See also Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). However, `[n]o particular factor should be given undue weight in determining the issue of voluntariness.' Rokitski v. State , 715 So.2d at 861 . The fact that the defendant was in police custody or that the officers made a showing of force does not, of itself, negate a finding of voluntariness. Id. at 861-62 . See also United States v. Watson , 423 U.S. 411 , 96 S.Ct. 820 , 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976); Hollander v. State , 418 So.2d 970 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). However, although not dispositive of the question of voluntariness, the fact that a defendant had been advised of his Miranda rights and of his right to refuse the request to search are significant factors in determining whether the consent was voluntary. Bradley v. State , 494 So.2d [750] at 761 [(Ala.Crim.App. 1985)]; 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.2(i) and (j), 689-90, 692 (3d ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Urioso v. State · 62 So. 3d 553 - Mills v. State

2. “`The exclusionary rule requires that evidence obtained directly or indirectly through government violations of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments may not be introduced by the prosecution at trial, at least for the purpose of providing direct proof of the defendant's guilt. When a court improperly admits evidence in violation of the exclusionary rule, reversal is required unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.' "Miles Clark, Project, Thirty-first Annual Review of Criminal Procedure , The Exclusionary Rule , 90 Geo. L.J. 1087 , 1264 (2002) (footnotes omitted). "`As an adjunct of the exclusionary rule, the "fruit of the poisonous tree”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 867 So. 2d 1153 - Kabat v. State

3. “Independent Source Exception . Even if police engage in illegal investigatory activity, evidence will be admissible if it is discovered through a source independent of the illegality. The independent source doctrine reflects the idea that although the government ought not profit from its misconduct, it also should not be made worse off than it would have been had the misconduct not occurred.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 867 So. 2d 1153 - Kabat v. State