State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably State v. Lamme (1989), State v. Gardner (1998)
39 state decisions — followed in 12 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Roque · State v. Madera · State v. Clemente · State v. Chong Chung · Szarwak v. Warden
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The regulation, read in its entirety, indicates that the purpose is to determine whether the subject to be tested has ingested food, beverages, regurgitated or smoked. These activities adversely affect the accuracy of alcohol breath analysis. They are activities which do not require observation without cessation in order to determine if they have occurred. In light of the regulation’s purpose, we do not interpret [it] to require that an officer fix his unswerving gaze upon a subject during each fifteen minute interval prior to administration of a breath test. Such an interpretation would not only be practically impossible to perform but would allow a subject to thwart compliance with the regulation simply by turning his head away from the observing officer. Where, as here, evidence shows that a defendant was in an officer’s presence for at least a period of fifteen minutes and that the defendant did not ingest food or beverages, regurgitate or smoke, the requirement of “continuous observation” ... has been complied with.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““No person shall be an operator of a breath analysis instrument unless such person is employed by a law enforcement agency or by the department of health services and is certified by the department of health services. Such operator shall conduct the tests according to methods and with equipment certified by said department and shall check the instrument for accuracy at the beginning and no later than the end of each workday or shift. “(c) CERTIFICATION OF OPERATORS AND INSTRUCTORS. “(1) Certification of operators. “(a) In order to be certified as an operator of a breath analysis instrument, "a person shall apply to the department for certification and shall: “(i) Be employed by a law enforcement agency or by the department of health services; “(ii) Successfully complete a minimum of four (4) hours of training in the operation of the instrument to be used. Such training may be acquired by training courses given by the department or by instructors certified by the department for such purposes in accordance with subdivision (3) below; “(iii) Demonstrate to the department the proper use and application of the instrument. “(B) An operator’s certificate shall be valid for twelve (12) months from the date of issuance. The certificate is valid only while the operator is with the particular law enforcement agency for which certification was originally issued. “(C) Proficiency testing. In order to maintain an operator’s certificate, an operator may be required to satisfactorily analyze”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Comollo“at the beginning of each day of use or departmental shift and sometime before the end of each day or shirt”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.