177 Ind. App. 628 - Jaremczuk v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) When a certification of refusal to submit to a chemical test is submitted to the court, it shall hold a separate hearing on the matter of the test refusal for the determination of the following matters: (1) Did the law enforcement officer have probable cause to believe that the accused had committed the offense of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated under IC 9-4-1-54? In determining this issue, the court may consider matters alleged in a sworn probable cause affidavit submitted by the law enforcement officer or other witness, or the sworn testimony of any witnesses made a matter of record. Such affidavit or testimony may contain statements of: (i) erratic or unusual driving behavior; [[Image here]] (iii) behavior of accused when detained, such as his ability to speak, finger dexterity, steadiness on feet, ability to perform simple tests requiring normal coordination or balance; (iv) odor of alcoholic beverages, presence of alcoholic beverage containers or controlled substances; [[Image here]] (2) Did the law enforcement officer offer to the accused the opportunity to submit to a chemical test before placing the accused under arrest for such offense, and was the accused physically and mentally able to provide a breath sample? In determining these issues, the court may consider the written statements of the law enforcement officer on the certification of refusal of chemical test form, in addition to other relevant evidence, including testimony of the officer, the ac”

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

2. ““is limited to determining whether the evidence is sufficient as a matter of law to support the finding that the arresting officer had probable cause to stop the appellant-defendant and the finding that appellant-defendant knowingly refused to submit to a chemical test.... We will not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility and will accept that evidence presented to the trial court most favorable to the decision below.””

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