2010 Ark. App. 30 - Cain v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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. “[L]ike drug offenses, driving under the influence is likely within the category of crimes identified by the Gant Court as supplying a basis for searching a vehicle.... In addition to evidence that the car Ewertz was driving swerved in its lane and crossed over the fog line, that [the officer] smelled alcohol in the car after he pulled Ewertz over, that Ewertz failed field sobriety tests, that Ewertz had glassy and bloodshot eyes, and that Ewertz slurred her words, there is also evidence that Ewertz admitted to drinking at least one alcoholic beverage before driving the car.... [I]t was “reasonable to believe” evidence relevant to the crime of driving under the influence might be found in Ewertz’ vehicle.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 224 Md. App. 476 - Taylor v. State

2. “Officers must be put on notice about what is allowed following Gant, and the majority fails to define these limitations. Instead, the majority sends the message that nothing has changed and officers can continue to search a vehicle incident to a lawful arrest without anything more to prompt such a search.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 391 Wis. 2d 831 - State v. Mose B. Coffee

3. “Reid's arrest for 'being under the influence of a controlled substance' supplied a reasonable basis for believing that evidence 'relevant' to that type of offense might be in his vehicle.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 391 Wis. 2d 831 - State v. Mose B. Coffee