93 Md. App. 408 - State v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 8 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “even if anticipatory warrants are not per se violative of the Fourth Amendment, the warrant in this case is, because (1) there was at the time of issuance no probable cause to believe — only speculation — that at some point in time a transaction would occur that would demonstrate the existence of contraband in the premises to be searched; and (2) it was left to the unrestricted judgment of the executing officer to determine whether the triggering event ... had occurred.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 112 Md. App. 656 - Kostelec v. State

2. “federal and state courts that have addressed the issue are almost unanimous in holding that [anticipatory] warrants are not per se unconstitutional____ The linchpin of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, and courts have concluded that it is “not unreasonable for a magistrate to believe certain controllable events will occur in the near future, e.g., that the post office will deliver a package the next day, when responsible officials so advise him.” ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 112 Md. App. 656 - Kostelec v. State

3. “In fact, “it may fairly be said that as a general proposition the facts put forward to justify issuance of an anticipatory warrant are more likely to establish that probable cause will exist at the time of the search than the typical warrant based solely upon known prior location of the item to be seized at the place to be searched.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 112 Md. App. 656 - Kostelec v. State