State v. Schmadeka’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
3
states following
May 2019
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Illinois v. Gates · Wong Sun v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · United States v. Ross
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Tenth Circuit’s distinction between the odor of burnt marijuana in the passenger compartment (alone insufficient to establish probable cause for a search of the car’s trunk) and that of raw marijuana (sufficient alone to establish probable cause for a search of the trunk) applies common sense in viewing the totality of the circumstances to deter mine the existence of probable cause. As explained in Wald : [The distinction] is premised on the common sense proposition that the smell of burnt marijuana is indicative of drug usage, rather than drug trafficking, and because it is unreasonable to believe people smoke marijuana in the trunks of cars, the mere smell of burnt marijuana does not create the fair probability that the trunk contains marijuana. 216 F.3d at 1226 . Thus, we conclude, as did the district court below, that the odor of burnt marijuana alone, when recognized by a person or canine qualified to recognize the odor, is only sufficient to establish probable cause for a warrantless search of the portion of the automobile associated with that odor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The existence of probable cause to search the interior of a car is not necessarily sufficient to justify a search of the car’s trunk. In Wimberly v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.3d 557 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 547 P.2d 417, 424-427 (1976), the California Supreme Court explained that observations that support only the inference of casual drug usage — the odor of burnt marijuana in the passenger compartment — do not reasonably support the inference that there is additional contraband hidden in the trunk. Rather, there must be specific articulable facts supporting probable cause to believe that the contraband or evidence is, in fact, concealed in the trunk.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.