Castle v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Although] we do not necessarily endorse the results in [these] cases, . . . we do endorse the principle espoused by LaFave and employed by the courts in Alexander, Felton, and Cantor . When a defendant commits a crime in response to an illegal search or seizure, the policy of the exclusionary rule — society's interest in deterring police misconduct — must govern any decision whether to admit or suppress evidence of the defendant's crime.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Campbell · Joseph v. State

2. “[T]o evaluate the State's argument, we must examine and clarify a particular aspect of the exclusionary rule: When the police violate the Fourth Amendment by unlawfully seizing or unlawfully attempting to seize a person, and the person responds by committing a crime, may the person be prosecuted for this crime notwithstanding the prior illegality? Or is the crime to be deemed a "fruit" of the police illegality, so that evidence of this crime must be suppressed? This issue is discussed by Professors LaFave, Israel, and King in their treatise on criminal procedure. [12] According to LaFave, . . . "the answer [lies] in the underlying deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule": Incriminating admissions and attempts to dispose of incriminating objects are common and predictable consequences of illegal arrests and searches, and thus to admit such evidence would encourage such Fourth Amendment violations in future cases. . . . LaFave, § 9.4(f), Vol. 3, pp. 380-81.”

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

3. “[10] We then declared: At that point, a seizure occurred — or, more precisely, a seizure would have occurred had Castle followed the officer's instruction. As it happened, Castle ignored the officer's order. The actual seizure occurred a few moments later when [the officer] chased after Castle, blocked his path with the patrol vehicle, and wrestled him to the ground. Castle, 999 P.2d at 172 . The State points out that our analysis of this point — i.e., our analysis of what constitutes a”

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