State v. Garrett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985), the Court, once again confronted with a warrantless vehicle search, attempted to square its prior reliance on the two different “automobile exception” theories— mobility and a lesser expectation of privacy. Acknowledging that the “capability to be quickly moved” was the basis of the “automobile exception” under Carroll v. United States [, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925) ] and the early automobile exception cases, the Court concluded it was no longer “the only basis for the exception.” Id. at 391, 105 S.Ct. 2066 . “Even in cases where an automobile was not immediately mobile, the lesser expectation of privacy resulting from its use as a readily mobile vehicle justified application of the vehicular exception.” Id. at 391 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 . These reduced expectations, the Court reasoned, derived from the “pervasive schemes of regulation ... and the exigencies attendant to ready mobility [which] justify searches without prior recourse to the authority of a magistrate so long as the overriding standard of probable cause is met.” Id. at 392 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Otto · State v. Sommer

2. “Under the inventory search exception, “police need neither probable cause nor a warrant to search a vehicle.” State v. Holmes, 569 N.W.2d 181, 186 (Minn.1997) (citing Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 643 , 103 S.Ct. 2605 , 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983)). In other words, the basis for an inventory search does not arise because the police suspect the vehicle contains contraband - or evidence of crime. Rather, the basis for an inventory search rests on the administrative and caretaking functions which we identified in Kunkel, 455 N.W.2d at 211 (citing Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987)). The Fourth Amendment examination, of an inventory search, therefore, turns not on the issue of probable cause, which is the traditional basis for the warrantless search of vehicles, but on the issues of whether the vehicle was properly impounded and the search was carried out in accordance with standard police procedures. Holmes, 569 N.W.2d at 187 ; see also State v. Goff, 166 W.Va. 47 , 272 S.E.2d 457, 459 (1980) (discussing the difference between inventory searches and the “automobile exception”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Syvertson

3. “The trial court’s disposition of a motion to suppress will not be reversed if, after conflicts in the testimony are resolved in favor of affirmance, there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court’s findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.”

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