2 Md. App. 183 - Kleinbart v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The facts upon which the court found in St. Clair that there was no ‘unreasonable’ search and seizure are clearly distinguishable, however, from the facts here in the record before us. Here, each of the Appellants was arrested for misdemeanors committed in Trooper Blazejak’s presence, on which charges they were entitled to an immediate hearing or to be released from custody on giving bond or collateral (see Art. 66V2, Sec. 320 Ann. Code, 1967 Repl. Vol.); the vehicle was towed for storage, to a designated, selected bailee in whose ability to protect the vehicle the police must have had confidence; the car doors would lock — in fact, Trooper Arnold used the keys to lock the vehicle after removing most of its contents; it was parked in a well-lighted area of the service station; no effort was apparently made to contact Mrs. Smallwood, its registered owner, who lived nearby at Landover, in the same county; there is no showing why, if the avowed purpose was to take ‘protective custody’ of the property, it was not removed contemporaneously with the transportation of the Appellants from the scene of the arrests to the Marlboro Post . . . Trooper Arnold searched not only the trunk of the vehicle, but the suitcase in it (a fact inconsistent with ‘protective custody’) and while in the process of removing articles from the vehicle before he transported them to Marlboro ‘to be inventoried,’ suspected that they had been stolen; nor did Trooper Arnold remove all the contents of the vehic”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 23 Md. App. 19 - Dixon v. State

2. ““The next question before us is whether, under the facts shown in the record of this case, the removal by Trooper Arnold of the property within the car and the trunk for the avowed purpose ‘to protect the property’ constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Id., at 2 Md. App. 194 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 23 Md. App. 19 - Dixon v. State

3. ““Maryland follows the majority view of the federal and state courts, requiring the objector to present to the court an alleged violation of his own constitutional rights as a prerequisite to his right to object to ‘tainted’ evidence.” (Emphasis supplied)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 27 Md. App. 302 - Duncan and Smith v. State