Rodriquez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In discussing the fourth amendment policy against unnecessary invasions of privacy, it was stated in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), that informed and deliberate determinations of magistrates empowered to issue warrants are to be preferred over the hurried action of officers who may happen to make arrests. In Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960)[,] the United States Supreme Court strongly supported the preference to searches under a warrant and they indicated that in a marginal case a search under a warrant may be sustainable where without one it would fail. In speaking for the court in Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 , 68 S.Ct. 367 , 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948), Mr. Justice Jackson stated: The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Any assumption that evidence sufficient to support a magistrate's disinterested determination to issue a search warrant will justify the officers in making a search without a warrant would reduce the Amendment to a nullity and leave the people's homes secure only in the discretion of police officers. (Footnotes o”

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

2. “If an officer is lawfully in a position which exposes contraband or evidence to plain view, the evidence may be seized without benefit of a search warrant. Merely seeing those objects which are in plain view does not constitute a search.”

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