State v. Sharpe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 , 110 S.Ct. 1093 , 108 L.Ed.2d 276 , two men, one of whom wore a red running suit, committed an armed robbery of a pizza restaurant. That same day, police obtained arrest warrants for two suspects, Jerome Buie and Lloyd Allen. Buie’s house was placed under surveillance. Two days later, believing that Buie was inside his home, police entered to arrest him. In an attempt to find Buie, one of the officers first secured access to the basement and then twice shouted out into the basement, ordering anyone down there to come out. A male voice called back in reply. Eventually, a pair of hands was seen at the bottom of the stairwell, and Buie came up the stairs and was arrested. Thereafter, another officer entered the basement “in case someone else” was down there. When he did, the officer found a red running suit in plain view, connecting Buie to the armed robbery. Buie moved to suppress evidence of the red running suit police had seized. A Maryland court of appeals held that the trial court erred when it denied Buie’s motion. On review, the Supreme Court reversed the state court, holding that the warrantless entry into Buie’s basement was not unreasonable. The Supreme Court emphasized that per Payton v. New York (1980), 445 U.S. 573 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 , the warrant for his arrest authorized police to enter Buie’s residence in order to find and arrest him, and to search the premises for him until he was found. However, that authority t”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Evans, 89242 (5-1-2008) · State v. McLemore

2. “justifies a warrantless entry in a variety of situations, including when entry into a building is necessary to protect or preserve life, to prevent physical harm to persons or property, or to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence, or when someone inside poses a danger to the police officer’s safety. Mincey v. Arizona (1978), 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 ; United States v. McConney (C.A.9, 1984), 728 F.2d 1195 ; State v. Price (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 464 , 731 N.E.2d 280 ; State v. Applegate (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 348 , 626 N.E.2d 942 ; State v. Overholser (July 25, 1997), Clark App. No. 96CA0073, 1997 WL 451473 ; State v. Sladeck (1998), 132 Ohio App.3d 86 , 724 N.E.2d 488 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Prater, 06-Ca-89 (12-19-2008) · State v. McLemore

3. “In Terry and Long we were concerned with the immediate interest of the police officers in taking steps to assure themselves that the persons with whom they were dealing were not armed with, or able to gain immediate control of, a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against them. In the instant case, there is an analogous interest of the officers in taking steps to assure themselves that the house in which a suspect is being, or has just been, arrested is not harboring other persons who are dangerous and who could unexpectedly launch an attack. The risk of danger in the context of an arrest in the home is as great as, if not greater than, it is in an on-the-street or roadside investigatory encounter. A Terry or Long frisk occurs before a police-citizen confrontation has escalated to the point of arrest. A protective sweep, in contrast, occurs as an adjunct to the serious step of taking a person into custody for the purpose of prosecuting him for a crime. Moreover, unlike an encounter on the street or along a highway, an in-home arrest puts the officer at the disadvantage of being on his adversary's `turf.' An ambush in a confined setting of unknown configuration is more to be feared than it is in open, more familiar surroundings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Evans, 89242 (5-1-2008)