107 Ohio App. 3d 403 - State v. Forts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Forts * * * was heading back to the scene of the crime and was stopped only several feet from the entrance. Moreover, the evidence indicated that Forts was in fact heading back into the residence. We cannot say that the police would have to wait for Forts to enter the residence in order to conduct a search under the authority of the warrant. Because Forts was reasonably connected with drug sales at the residence and was located only several feet from the residence, the police did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights by conducting the search.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McClendon, Ca2006-06-025 (4-9-2007)

2. “Id. After parking her car in an alley adjacent to the residence, Forts walked towards the residence and officers arrested and searched her in the alley. Id. The search of Fort's purse produced crack cocaine, a crack pipe, and a hemostat with cotton. Id. The Ninth District Court of Appeals held that even though Forts was not”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McClendon, Ca2006-06-025 (4-9-2007)

3. “A warrant for the search of premises implicitly confers a limited authority on police officers to conduct investigative detentions of individuals found on the premises who can be reasonably connected to the property.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Jacobs, 08ca3028 (1-6-2009)