90 Ill. App. 3d 753 - People v. Harmon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In State v. Williams (1978), 55 Ohio St. 2d 82 [ 9 O.O.3d 81 ], 377 N.E. 2d 1013 , an analogous situation was presented. In Williams , a warrant had been issued for the seizure of certain stolen property, specifically, a hydraulic jack, a cutting torch, and an acetylene tank. When at the garage to conduct the search, the police officers noticed that the defendant was working on a partially assembled automobile and that numerous automobile parts of the same shade were lying near the vehicle. The defendant told one police officer that the vehicle was his and that he had recently purchased it from a local salvage yard. The officer phoned the salvage yard and was informed that two automobiles were sold to the defendant in a stripped condition, missing various body parts. The officer noted that the two cars in the shop had attached to them, or lying near them, various car parts. The officer seized the equipment listed in the search warrant, and based on the information obtained by the telephone call, seized the two cars and miscellaneous car parts. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the officer did not have probable cause to believe, upon initial inspection of the automobile parts, that the defendant was in possession of contraband. The court noted that it was necessary for the police officer to inquire where the vehicles were purchased and place a telephone call to the salvage yard before the officer became suspicious that the parts might have been stolen. “* * * We decline, li”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Halczyszak

2. “The amount of particularity required in naming the items to be seized for a given warrant to be valid will vary with the circumstances and with the ability of the complainants to be specific. But a minimum amount of particularity is required in all cases.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Namen v. State