2 Md. App. 210 - Wilson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
July 1987
most recently cited
18 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Carroll v. United States · United States v. Rabinowitz · Preston v. United States · Agnello v. United States · Harris v. United States
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.
““It is clear, however, that the warrantless seizure of the shotgun offered into evidence was not incident to the arrest and cannot be sustained as incidental thereto, even though the arrest was lawful, for ‘a search can be incident to an arrest only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest. Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20 . See also Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483 ; Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364 . Here, the arrest was not in the immediate vicinity of the car and was effected nearly an hour after the search and seizure. “We are of the opinion, nevertheless, that the seizure of the shotgun without a warrant was, under the circumstances, lawful. It is apparent that the seizure in this instance does not fit neatly into any of the several categories or exceptions which have been carved out of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against searches and seizures without a warrant. However, as this Court said in St. Clair v. State, 1 Md. App. 605 , at page 617: * * the relevant test is whether the search was reasonable under all of the circumstances, for it is only unreasonable searches that are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925); Stewart v. State, 1 Md. App. 309 (1967). And that which is reasonable cannot be determined by any fixed formula, United States v. Rabinowitz, supra, nor can it be stated in rigid and absolute terms, Harris v. United States, 33”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.