State v. Farris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

158 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 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the smell of marijuana, alone, by a person qualified to recognize the odor, is sufficient to establish probable cause to search a motor vehicle, pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. There need be no other tangible evidence to justify a warrantless search of a vehicle.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Kesler, 2007-P-0107 (9-12-2008) · State v. Mansour

2. “We believe that to hold otherwise would encourage law-enforcement officers to withhold Miranda warnings and would thus weaken Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. In cases like this one, where possession is the basis for the crime and physical evidence is the keystone of the case, warning suspects of their rights can hinder the gathering of evidence. When physical evidence is central to a conviction and testimonial evidence is not, there can arise a virtual incentive to flout Miranda . We believe that the overall administration of justice in Ohio requires a law-enforcement environment in which evidence is gathered in conjunction with Miranda , not in defiance of it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Peterson

3. “We believe that to hold otherwise would encourage law-enforcement officers to withhold Miranda *Page 10 warnings and would thus weaken Section 10 , Article I of the Ohio Constitution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Kessler, Unpublished Decision (3-19-2007)