112 So. 2d 864 - Cameron v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 53 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"As a necessary and proper evolution of the living law to meet the changing needs of society, the modern trend of authority is to narrow the concept of immunity against searches and seizures when it involves a motor vehicle used as an aid to the commission of crimes, whether in transporting the criminal or the fruit of the crime. This trend is reflected by the acceptance of less compelling facts and circumstances than formerly required to constitute `probable cause' for an arrest of the driver or occupant, or for search of the vehicle and seizure of property found therein without supporting warrants."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Law · Chippas v. State

2. “"While the exact question does not appear to have been heretofore considered or passed upon by our Supreme Court, it is clear from a review of other authorities that the constitutional guarantee to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures accrues only to the persons in whom is vested the lawful right of possession of the premises searched, and does not extend to others who might incidentally be on the premises at the time the search is made. Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 , 46 S.Ct. 4 , 70 L.Ed. 145 , 51 A.L.R. 409 ; United States v. Pepe, 2 Cir., 247 F.2d 838 ; Lovette v. United States, 5 Cir., 230 F.2d 263 ; Connolly v. Medalie, 2 Cir., 58 F.2d 629 ; United States v. Messina, 2 Cir., 36 F.2d 699 . "Since defendant Pless was neither the owner nor had the lawful right to possession of the automobile which was the subject of the search resulting in seizure of the stolen property, he was not in position to object to the search and seizure. This would be the case even if the search and seizure had been unlawful as to Cameron. The evidence seized was therefore admissible in the trial of the charges against him."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chippas v. State · Hodges v. State

3. “"Every licensee shall have his operator's or chauffeur's license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display the same, upon demand of a patrol officer, justice of the peace, a peace officer, or a field deputy or inspector of the department. However, no person charged with violating this section shall be convicted if he produces in court an operator's or chauffeur's license theretofore issued to him and valid at the time of his arrest."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Barnett · 155 So. 2d 826 - Smith v. State