133 Ohio App. 3d 114 - State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “I. The court committed substantial prejudicial error by admitting an affidavit (State's Exhibit 1) in evidence. {¶ 4} "A. The state denied defendant the right to confront witnesses guaranteed by the 6th and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1 Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution. {¶ 5} "B. The affidavit was not admissible pursuant to the rules of evidence. {¶ 6} "II. The state failed to introduce evidence that the breath test was properly conducted or that the machine had it's [sic] calibration properly checked as required by Department of Health requirements. {¶ 7} "III. The state failed to establish probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol. {¶ 8} "A. The field sobriety tests in this case should not have been considered for probable cause to arrest the defendant. {¶ 9} "B. Without the field sobriety tests the officer did not have sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to believe that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol. {¶ 10} "IV. The court committed substantial prejudicial error in finding probable cause to believe that the defendant was operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Christian, Unpublished Decision (6-11-2004) · State v. Draper, Unpublished Decision (3-4-2005)

2. ““Before agents of the government may invade the sanctity of the home, the burden is on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances that overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to all warrantless home entries. When the government’s interest is only to arrest for a minor offense, that presumption of unreasonableness is difficult to rebut, and the government usually should be allowed to make such arrests only with a warrant issued upon probable cause by a neutral and detached magistrate.” (Citation and footnote omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 135 Ohio App. 3d 253 - State v. Scott M.

3. “The four exceptions to the warrant requirement justifying a warrantless search of a home are (1) an emergency situation, (2) search incident to an arrest, (3) `hot pursuit,' and (4) easily destroyed or removed evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mims, Unpublished Decision (2-24-2006)