119 Wis. 2d 102 - State v. Rodgers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Our decision today is a narrow one. We hold only that when the subject of a search is not in custody and the State attempts to justify a search on the basis of his consent, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require that they demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied. Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances and while the subject’s knowledge of a right to refuse is a factor to be taken into. account, the prosecution is not required to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent.” 93 S.Ct. at 2059 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Alder · 2002 WI App 61 - State v. Wallace

2. “The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution protect the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 123 Wis. 2d 303 - State v. Stevens · 335 Wis. 2d 234 - State v. Lathan

3. ““ ‘Regarding the question of a policeman’s modus operandi in obtaining consent, the Supreme Court in Schneckloth observed that, “two competing concerns must be accommodated in determining the meaning of a ‘voluntary’ consent— the legitimate need of such [police entry] and the equally important requirement of assuring the absence of coercion.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra, 412 U.S. at 227 , 93 S.Ct. at 2048 . We do not think that the officers’ statement of their purpose in this case in any way undermined the voluntary character of the young lady’s consent. They did not mask their official capacities, nor did they misrepresent their purpose for being there. Without being explicit, they stated that they wanted to talk with the brother, and the sister sought no further elaboration. Certainly, a policeman has a right to execute his lawful function without gratuitously advertising his every move to anyone he might encounter in that pursuit.' 442 A.2d at 980 .” 349 N.W.2d at 458 (emphasis in original).”

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