State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 169 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 187 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The state argues that we should ... affirm the court of appeals because the trial court was correct in its conclusion that a cell phone is akin to a closed container and is thus subject to search upon a lawful arrest. We do not agree with this comparison. Objects falling under the banner of ‘closed container’ have traditionally been physical objects capable of holding other physical objects. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has stated that in this situation, ‘container’ means ‘any object capable of holding another object.’ New York v. Belton (1981), 453 U.S. 454, 460 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768, n. 4 . One such example is a cigarette package containing drugs found in a person’s pocket, as in United States v. Robinson (1973), 414 U.S. 218 , 94 S.Ct. 467 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 . “We acknowledge that some federal courts have likened electronic devices to closed containers. See, e.g., United States v. Chan (N.D.Cal.1993), 830 F.Supp. 531, 534 (finding that a pager is analogous to a closed container), United States v. Ortiz (C.A.71996), 84 F.3d 977, 984 (following Chan in holding that a pager is a closed container), United States v. David (D.Nev.1991), 756 F.Supp. 1385, 1390 (finding a computer memo book ‘indistinguishable from any other closed container’). Each of these cases, however, fails to consider the Supreme Court’s definition of ‘container’ in Belton , which implies that the container must actually have a physical object within it. Additionally, the pagers and com”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 113 So. 3d 724 - Smallwood v. State · 61 So. 3d 448 - Smallwood v. State

2. “because a person has a high expectation of privacy in a cell phone's contents,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. People v. Diaz · 113 So. 3d 724 - Smallwood v. State

3. “[o]bjects falling under the banner of `closed container' have traditionally been physical objects capable of holding other physical objects. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has stated that in this situation, `container' means `any object capable of holding another object.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Diaz