Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 142 Md. App. 673 - Wallace v. State

142 Md. App. 673 - Wallace v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Carroll v. United States · Florida v. Royer · Ornelas v. United States

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

  1. “Johnson’s argument is premised upon the notion that [the officer] had no probable cause pertaining to him—the passenger of the vehicle. Even if there was probable cause pertaining to the driver, who was operating and “controlling” the vehicle, it may not necessarily follow that there was probable cause to believe that the passenger was involved in whatever crime that may have been committed by the driver. Accordingly, having determined that probable cause existed as to the driver in this case, we must nonetheless continue with our analysis of probable cause to determine if it existed as to appellant as well.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “Probable cause to believe that a person is carrying evidence does not justify a warrantless search of the person any more than probable cause to believe a home contains evidence justifies a warrantless search of a home. Only places or things enjoying a lesser expectation of privacy, such as automobiles, are vulnerable to probable-cause-based warrantless searches for the purpose of discovering and seizing evidence of crime.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In this case, there was evidence of the commission of a crime when Bosco gave a positive alert to the Buick. This alert permitted a search of the vehicle, but, ivithout anything more particular to link any one passenger in the car, including appellant, to the drugs smelled by Bosco, the search of each individual passenger absent an airest based upon probable cause was improper.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.