165 Ill. 2d 211 - People v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

84 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Any variance between the Supreme Court’s construction of the provisions of the fourth amendment in the Federal Constitution and similar provisions in the Illinois Constitution must be based on more substantial grounds [than those argued by the defendant], We must find in the language of our constitution, or in the debates and the committee reports of the constitutional convention, something which will indicate that the provisions of our constitution are intended to be construed differently than are similar provisions in the Federal Constitution, after which they are patterned.” Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d at 245 , 469 N.E.2d at 157 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 293 Ill. App. 3d 315 - People v. Brownlee · 202 Ill. 2d 462 - People v. Cox

2. ““When objects have a distinctive and consistent shape that an officer has been trained to detect and that officer has had previous experience in detecting such objects, his tactile perceptions can provide him with the same recognition that his sight would have provided. [Citations.] We caution that the officer’s belief must be objectively reasonable, in light of his past experience and training, and capable of verification.” Mitchell, 165 Ill. 2d at 227 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 347 Ill. App. 3d 382 - People v. Morquecho · 332 Ill. App. 3d 1063 - People v. Pratcher

3. “"Consistent with Tisler, we find nothing, either in the language of [section 6] or in the debates, to support a divergence in interpretation of our section 6 search and seizure clause from the Federal fourth amendment interpretation. Indeed, the court in Tisler stated that after having accepted the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in deciding fourth amendment cases as the appropriate construction of the search and seizure provisions of the Illinois [C]onstitution for so many years, absent some substantial grounds, we should not suddenly change course.” (Emphasis in original.) Mitchell, 165 Ill. 2d at 219 , 650 N.E.2d at 1018 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 293 Ill. App. 3d 315 - People v. Brownlee