State v. Foldesi’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2017
11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Chimel v. California · Rakas v. Illinois · New York v. Belton · United States v. Salvucci · Laws v. United Missouri Bank
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Operating a motor vehicle in this state without a valid driver’s license is a misdemeanor. I.C. §§ 49-236, -301, -331(8). As a general proposition, a police officer may, without a warrant, make an arrest for a misdemeanor committed in the officer’s presence. I.C. § 19-603(1). This general arrest authority is modified, however, with respect to misdemeanor violations of Title 49 of the Idaho Code, which regulates motor vehicles and their operation. Idaho Code § 49-1409 provides: “Whenever a person is halted by a peace officer for a misdemeanor traffic violation and is not taken before a magistrate as required or permitted by this title, the officer shall issue a citation as provided by section 19-3901, Idaho Code, and by rule of the supreme court.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, for misdemeanor traffic violations, an officer must issue a citation rather than make an arrest unless there exist circumstances under which an arrest is specifically “required or permitted” under Title 49. No statute requires an arrest for the offense of driving with an expired license. The circumstances under which an arrest for this misdemeanor is permitted are specified in I.C. § 49-1407. The relevant portion of that statute provides: Whenever any person is halted by a peace officer for any misdemeanor violation of the provisions of this title and is not required to be taken before a magistrate, the person shall, in the discretion of the officer, either be given a traffic citation or be taken without unnec”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown · State v. Jones“No hospital, hospital officer, agent, or employee, or health care professional licensed by the state of Idaho ... shall incur any civil or criminal liability for any act arising out of administering an evidentiary test for alcohol concentration or for the presence of drugs or other intoxicating substances at the request or order of a peace officer in the manner described in this section and section 18-8002A, Idaho Code ... (b) A peace officer is empowered to order an individual authorized in section 18-8003, Idaho Code, to withdraw a blood sample for evidentiary testing when the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any of the following offenses: (i) Aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substance as provided in section 18-8006, Idaho Code; (ii) Vehicular manslaughter as provided in subsections (3)(a), (b) and (c) of section 18-4006, Idaho Code; (iii) Aggravated operating of a vessel on the waters of the state while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances as provided in section 67-7035, Idaho Code; or (iv) Any criminal homicide involving a vessel on the waters of the state while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances. (e) The withdrawal of the blood sample may be delayed or terminated if: (i) In the reasonable judgment of the hospital personnel withdrawal of the blood sample may result in serious bodily injury to hospital personnel or ot”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Worthington“using that resistance as an excuse to arrest the occupant). The objective actions of Officer Damron in detaining Hernandez through the execution of the search warrant were at all times consistent with a Terry stop, and at no time was Hernandez placed in”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hernandez v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.