154 Ohio App. 3d 123 - State v. Hummel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 26 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “While probable cause means more than bare suspicion, it means less than evidence that would justify conviction.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lothes, 2006-P-0086 (8-17-2007) · Kirtland Hills v. Deir, Unpublished Decision (4-1-2005)

2. “The court of appeals is bound to accept factual determinations of the trial court made during the suppression hearing so long as they are supported by competent and credible evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Perl, Unpublished Decision (11-17-2006) · State v. Key, 2007-L-210 (6-6-2008)

3. “a police officer has probable cause to arrest for driving under the influence where the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the accused had operated the vehicle while under the influence. Hummel, 2003-Ohio-4602 , at ¶¶ 30. {¶ 12} In its judgment entry, the trial court found that, based upon the testimony at the suppression hearing, officers arrived at the scene of the accident within two minutes of being dispatched; that, upon the officer's arrival, Dust was observed in his vehicle, which had just been involved in an accident; that Dust emitted a strong odor of alcohol and had bloodshot eyes and a flushed face; that Dust almost fell when exiting the rescue vehicle and required assistance to regain his balance, and that Dust swayed back and forth as he stood. The trial court found, based upon these facts and circumstances, "Officer Shum had the authority to administer sobriety tests,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Wickliffe v. Dust, Unpublished Decision (4-21-2006)