146 Md. App. 395 - Muse v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We emphasize that the officer was not required to establish to his satisfaction, prior to the stop, that the windshield called into question the safety of the vehicle. Contrary to appellant's assertion that the State has 'failed to prove' that his windshield was in violation of Section 22-101 or of any other applicable equipment provision either in the Code or COMAR, we likewise hasten to note that the State has no such burden of proving a violation to justify an officer's action at the initial investigatory stage . As we stated in Carter v. State , 143 Md. App. 670 , 795 A.2d 790 (2002), '[t]he fundamental purpose of a Terry -stop, based as it is on reasonable suspicion, is to confirm or to dispel that suspicion by asking for an explanation of the suspicious behavior.' "”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 238 Md. App. 587 - Baez v. State · 206 Md. App. 309 - Ray v. State

2. “The protections of the Fourth Amendment [apply] to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment ... and its provisions are construed in pari materia with those of Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.... Constructions of the federal amendment by the United States Supreme Court are controlling authority.” Muse v. State, 146 Md.App. 395 , 401 n. 7, 807 A.2d 113 (2002) (citations omitted). 2 . While the authority of police officers to detain individuals on the premises while a search warrant is being executed is “categorical,” their authority to frisk those persons is not.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 203 Md. App. 132 - Fields v. State

3. ““(a) In general.—(1) A person may not drive and the owner may not cause or knowingly permit to be driven on any highway any vehicle or combination of vehicles that: (i) Is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person[.]””

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