Allen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although a "reach-in" search that exposes a person's private area is invasive, and therefore not automatically permitted as a search incident to arrest, it is less invasive than a full strip search. Here, the police officers merely pulled the appellants' pants and underwear away from their waist, at which point the police observed a plastic bag protruding from the appellants' buttocks. Appellants' clothing was not removed, and the private areas of their bodies were not publicly exposed. The officers took steps to protect appellants' privacy. In each case, the officer involved testified, and the court credited the testimony, that the officer stood directly behind the suspect, and he was the only one who could see appellants' buttocks during the search. The scope and manner of the searches were not unreasonable. With respect to the location of the searches, appellants note that they occurred on a public street. Although that is true, the testimony was that the searches were conducted out of public view. The officers testified that the searches occurred in front of storage garages, not homes, and there were "no civilians in the area." A "reach-in" search may be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, even if it occurs in a public place, if the police take steps to protect the suspect's privacy.”

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

2. “Detective Beal ... first searched Mr. Allen’s pockets and pant legs, and then he checked for ‘slits in the waistband area of his pants,’ but he did not find any narcotics. Detective Beal then pulled back Mr. Allen’s pants and saw a plastic bag ‘protruding’ from between his buttocks. While holding the waistband of Mr. Allen’s pants out, Officer Beal directed Mr. Allen to ‘spread his legs and squat.’ A bag dropped from between Mr. Allen’s buttocks to ‘his underwear area,’ and Officer Beal ‘reached in and pulled it out.’ The bag contained 28 orange ziploc bags filled with narcotics. Officer Beal testified that he did not touch Mr. Allen while recovering the narcotics....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 199 Md. App. 96 - Turkes v. State

3. “[a]ny exigency beyond the inherent exigency attributable to the 'easily disposable nature of the drugs,' is less significant in cases like Allen , Partlow , and this one, where the searches were 'not as intrusive as the one in Paulino . ' " In support, the State points to this Court's statement in Allen that "[i]t was the highly invasive nature of the search in Paulino , as well as the lack of evidence that Paulino's privacy was protected in any way, that led the Court to hold that exigent circumstances were required before such a search in a public place was reasonable.”

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