195 Md. App. 695 - Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[I]t is well known within the police community generally and expressly acknowledged by the officers in this case, that drug traffickers secrete drugs in their body cavities to avoid detection. Here, the police officers had more than reasonable, articulable suspicion that appellant, a known drug dealer, would be carrying contraband on his person or in his vehicle; they had a warrant, based on probable cause, authorizing the search of appellant and the vehicle he was driving for drugs, When a search of the vehicle from which appellant was known to distribute drugs and a search of his outer clothing did not reveal any drugs, we are persuaded that a strip search followed by a visual body cavity search was reasonable.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Redfearn v. State · 2013 Pa. Super. 102 - Commonwealth v. Martinez

2. “[s]trip searches, and body cavity searches in particular, are to be conducted in places that are private and appropriately hygienic. This will necessarily involve securing the search area from public view and may often involve transporting the person by vehicle to a more private and secure facility, such as a police station.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 242 Md. App. 212 - Faith v. State

3. “beginning with a search of ... outer garments, moving on to a strip search, and then to a visual body cavity search when the drugs were not found in the previous search efforts”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 242 Md. App. 212 - Faith v. State