Sam v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we do not interfere with the trial court's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's determination because the trial court has an opportunity at the evidentiary hearing to assess the credibility of the witnesses, weigh the evidence, and make the necessary inferences, deductions, and conclusions. The constitutionality of a particular search is a question of law that we review de movo.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Venegas v. State · Lefferdink v. State

2. “Recently, we applied Vasquez, for the first time, as the basis for reversing a district court's order denying a motion to suppress. - Pierce v. State, 2007 WY 182 , 171 P.3d 525 (Wyo.2007). The cireum-stances of this case, as set out above, differ markedly from those in Pierce. In the proceedings below, and in the briefs in this appeal, both parties discuss several of the "exceptions" to the essential rule established by Vasquez. Those exceptions include: (1) That an officer may search the area immediately available to an arrested person for weapons or other contraband that might pose a threat to officer and/or public safety; (2) that the presence of a second passenger in the car who could present a threat to officer or public safety may justify a search; (8) the possible need to secure an arrestee's automobile may Justify a search; and (4) that in such circumstances an automobile may be searched for evidence related to the crime which justified the arrest. Because it is dispositive of this appeal, we will limit our consideration only to that exception which sanctions a search of the automobile for evidence which might relate to the crime for which Sam was arrested. Sam was arrested for multiple reasons, but the record is clear that the initial stop and the initial arrest were for violations of a protection order. Our careful review of the record convinces us that Beck's search of Sam's car was reasonable under all of the cireumstances detailed above. That the cursory search ”

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