State v. Hanson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[B]odily substance samples [are] not subject to the exclusiohary rule under the Fourth Amendment if they are taken (1) incident to a lawful attest, (2) by a reliable and accepted method of obtaining such sample, (3) in a rfeasonable, medically approved manner, and (4) where there is probable cause to believe that the evidence sought exists. [Schmerber ] also held that the elimination of alcohol by natural bodily functions presents exigent circumstances which obviate the necessity of obtaining a search warrant.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fierro · Siers v. Weber

2. “This court's function under the clearly erroneous standard is to determine whether the decision of the lower court lacks the support of substantial evidence, evolves from an erroneous view of the applicable law or whether, considering the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. State v. Corder, 460 N.W.2d 733 (S.D.1990). In making this determination, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's decision. Id.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re HLS · In re H.L.S.

3. “We have held in issue one that there was probable cause to arrest Hanson for possession of marijuana. As such, the officers had the right to search her in a medically reasonable manner based on exigent circumstances and as incident to that lawful arrest for the drug. The state must establish the procedure itself was reasonable when weighing the accused’s interests in privacy and security against society’s interest in the procedure in identifying the perpetrator of the crime. The type of testing used in this case, submitting a urine sample, would seem to be more reasonable and less intrusive on a person’s life than the alternative of attempting to secure a warrant. If a warrant were necessary, significant restraints would have to be placed upon the individual to preserve the chain of evidence while the law enforcement sought to locate a magistrate or circuit judge and obtain a warrant. Urination into a specimen container is reasonable process. As a normal body function, urination is less intrusive than removal of blood by a syringe. There is no threat to the safety or the health of the individual. Considered in the analysis is whether all reasonable medical precautions were taken and no unusual or untested procedures were employed. Here no unusual or untested procedures were required.”

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