State v. Neil’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he exigency must be factually and narrowly tied to the circumstances that rendered a warrant application impracticable. Here, the officers knew defendant and knew he had no history of violent behavior or carrying weapons. The evidence does not show, nor is it argued, that the officers subjectively believed that the circumstances necessitated a warrantless search. The State concedes that the pouch was not threatening or suspicious. With defendant in custody, once the officers seized the pouch, any danger to the officers or the public was eliminated.”

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

2. “no reason why a container seized from the pocket of an arrestee should be less protected than one seized from his vehicle,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re CC

3. “[o]ur divergence from federal precedent governing warrantless searches of closed containers is well-settled.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re CC