State v. Baxter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Here, the record clearly establishes that the deputy had reasonable suspicion, if not probable cause, to believe Baxter was driving under the influence of alcohol. Because a limited Terry search based on reasonable suspicion is constitutionally permissible, see, e.g., State v. Parizek, 2004 ND 78, ¶ 17 , 678 N.W.2d 154 , the deputy’s request that Baxter submit to an onsite screening test did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Baxter was not forced to .submit to the onsite screening test. Rather, he took advantage of the statutory right to refuse the test, and no test was given. As in Beylund [v. Levi], 2015 ND 18, ¶ 24 , 859 N.W.2d 403 , and in Birchfield, 2015 ND 6, ¶15 , 858 N.W.2d 302 , Baxter points to nothing in the implied consent laws that would require him to submit to an onsite screening test in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, the same reasonableness analysis we employed in Beylund, at ¶¶ 23-29, and Birchfield , at ¶ 5, is equally applicable to criminalizing the refusal to submit to an onsite screening test. Based on our holdings in Birchfield and Beylund, we conclude Baxter’s rights under the Fourth Amendment and N.D. Const, art. I, § 8, and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, were not violated in this case.”

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

2. “The determination whether a statute is unconstitutional is a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal. All regularly enacted statutes carry a strong presumption of constitutionality, which is conclusive unless the party challenging the statute clearly demonstrates that it contravenes the state or federal constitution. Any doubt about a statute’s constitutionality must, when possible, be resolved in favor of its validity. The power to declare a legislative act unconstitutional is one of the highest functions of the courts, and that power must be exercised with great restraint. The presumption of constitutionality is so strong that a statute will not be declared unconstitutional unless its invalidity is, in the court’s judgment, beyond a reasonable doubt. The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of proving its constitutional infirmity.”

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