15 Or. App. 118 - State v. Florance’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Was the subsequent search of the wallet at the Estacada City Hall valid? This search occurred sometime after the arrest (the record does not disclose how long), some distance from the scene of the arrest (the record does not disclose how far). This search of the wallet clearly cannot be justified as being incident to defendant's arrest. "`The search must be an incident of the arrest, i.e., close to the arrest in time and space * * *.' State v. Chinn, supra, 231 Or. at 267 , 373 P.2d [392] at 396. Or, stated differently, `[O]nce an accused is under arrest and in custody, then a search made at another place * * * is simply not incident to the arrest.' Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 , 84 S.Ct. 881 , 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964). "`The very notion of a search incident to an arrest connotes spatial contiguity and temporal proximity. To hold otherwise would eliminate all pretense of a rational nexus between the search and the arrest and would be tantamount to saying that an individual legally arrested thereby forfeits all protection under the fourth amendment * * *.' Cook, Warrantless Searches Incident to Arrest, 24 Ala.L. Rev. 607, 608 (1972). "In this case, either the search of defendant's wallet was too remote in time and place to be part of a search incident to arrest, or at the very least it cannot be said that the state sustained its burden of proving a reasonably contemporaneous search under the circumstances of this case."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 17 Or. App. 464 - State v. Holmes