101 Wash. App. 80 - State v. Jacobs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This Court further concludes that even if [Jacobs] did have standing to challenge the search and seizure, the entry into the residence by Deputy Bergmann was lawful and correct, based on the Emergency and/or Exigent Circumstances Doctrine, as set forth in State v. Menz, 75 Wash.App. 351 , 880 P.2d 48 (1994).... .... In the case at hand, the officers ... had [knowledge of] a history of domestic violence at the residence, with Russell as the victim. They had assertions by Russell that he had been beaten up. They had several 911 calls made by Russell. They had suspicious behavior by Russell, including a continuously changing story. Moreover, the deputy, who had extensive experience dealing with domestic violence situations, knew that it was not uncommon for domestic violence victims to protect the perpetrator, either out of fear or misguided loyalty.... The deputies had an obligation under the law to further investigate the incident, including checking the inside of the residence for any additional victims ... and persons that might pose a threat to the victim they had already contacted....”

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

2. “Jacobs also lacks standing to challenge the search and seizure based on the ruling in State v. Picard, 90 Wash.App. 890 , [954] P.2d [336, review denied, 136 Wash.2d 1021 , 969 P.2d 1065 ] (1998). Under Picard , the defendant had no possessory or privacy interest in the place to be searched, his mother's bedroom, despite living in the residence, because he had no right to enter the room without permission. Jacobs may have been invited into the residence by Russell for limited purposes, but that did not raise his possessory or privacy interest in the residence to the requisite level required by Picard ... particularly in that, even with Russell's permission Jacobs was barred by law from being there, as noted in the previous paragraph.”

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

3. “Bergmann was also aware, based on her training and experience, that victims of domestic violence are sometimes uncooperative with police because they fear retribution from their abusers. James tried to prevent Bergmann from entering the residence and Birkenfeld restrained him. Bergmann entered the residence and saw Jacobs sitting on the couch, rolling a cigarette. Bergmann ascertained his identity and relayed it to dispatch, who informed her of the existence of a domestic violence no-contact order”

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