State v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the locale where the defendant made the statements; (2) the party who initiated the contact; (3) the existence or nonexistence of probable cause to arrest (to the extent communicated to the defendant); (4) subjective views, beliefs, or intent that the police manifested to the defendant, to the extent they would affect how a reasonable person in the defendant's position would perceive his or her freedom to leave; (5) subjective views or beliefs that the defendant manifested to the police, to the extent the officer's response would affect how a reasonable person in the defendant's position would perceive his or her freedom to leave; (6) the focus of the investigation (as a reasonable person in the defendant's position would perceive it); (7) whether the suspect was questioned in familiar surroundings; (8) the number of law enforcement officers present; (9) the degree of physical restraint placed upon the suspect; and (10) the duration and character of the interrogation.”

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

2. “To determine if a person was in custody for Miranda purposes, a court must objectively review the pertinent circumstances to decide whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have felt free to terminate the interaction with law enforcement or if there was a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest.”

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

3. “When a person has been subjected to an in-custody interrogation but has not been advised of his Miranda rights, the State may not offer the statements made during that interrogation against that person in its case-in-chief.”

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