State v. Marquardt’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. “During the last seventy-five years, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the unique nature of automobiles sets them apart from other areas pro tected from warrantless searches under the Fourth Amendment. This exception to the general rule requiring a warrant for searches and seizures is known as the automobile exception. Our first cases establishing the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement were based on the automobile's "ready mobility," an exigency sufficient to excuse failure to obtain a search warrant once probable cause to conduct the search is clear .... More recent cases provide a further justification: the individual's reduced expectation of privacy in an automobile, owing to its.pervasive regulation .... If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment thus permits police to search the vehicle without more. Thus, under current federal law, the warrantless search of a vehicle, does not offend the Fourth Amendment if (1) there is probable cause to search the vehicle; and (2) the vehicle is readily mobile.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2003 WI App 121 - State v. Clark

2. “Investigator Price [of the Chippewa County Sheriffs office] reports that after finding the body of Mary J. Marquardt, he spoke with her husband, Alfred E. Marquardt. Mr. Marquardt informed him that he and Mary have a son, Bill Marquardt, who, since the location of Ms. Marquardt's body had not been seen or heard from. Alfred Marquardt further informed Investigator Price that Bill Marquardt owned with Alfred Marquardt a cabin in which Bill resided at E27505 County Highway M, Town of Fairchild, County of Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Investigator Price further reports that in examining the body of Mary J. Marquardt and the scene where she was found, it appeared as though among the wounds incurred by her was a knife wound. Also at the scene, officers were able to locate a number of footprints that may be suitable for comparison with the shoes that made them. Investigator Barnier reports that in checking Eau Claire County tax rolls, he learned that a cabin. .. located at E27505 Highway M, Town of Fairchild, Eau Claire County, [is] owned by Alfred and Bill Marquardt.”

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

3. “"Despite the `public place' language that appears in [various Wisconsin] cases, we conclude that the automobile exception is nonetheless applicable to Marquardt. The genesis of the language was [California v.] Carney , [ 471 U.S. 386 (1985),] which involved the search of a fully mobile motor home located in a public place. See Carney , 471 U.S. at 387 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 . United States Supreme Court cases subsequent to Carney have not recognized a public place requirement for the automobile exception. See, e.g., [Maryland v.] Dyson , 527 U.S. [465 ,] 467, 119 S.Ct. 2013 [(1999)]. Thus, to the extent that Carney ever intended to impose a public place requirement, it is no longer applicable."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 948 So. 2d 583 - Harris v. State