State v. Davila’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) police officers are lawfully within private premises for a legitimate purpose, which may include consent to enter; and (2) the officers on the scene have a reasonable articulable suspicion that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger. Where those substantive conditions are met, as a matter of procedure, the sweep will be upheld only if (1) it is conducted quickly; and (2) it is restricted to places or areas where the person posing a danger could hide. [State v. Davila, 203 N.J. 97, 102 , 999 A.2d 1116 (2010).]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McCall · 441 N.J. Super. 533 - State v. Randolph

2. “For example, concerns might arise respecting a consent to entry requested for a stated common purpose but actually intended not for that purpose but rather for the purpose of gaining access in order to then make a protective sweep of the entire home for unrelated reasons and thus circumvent the warrant requirement. Concerns of a similar character might also arguably arise where the consent to entry is given expressly or implicitly only as to a limited area but the protective sweep extends clearly beyond that area without anything having developed since entry suggestive of greater or more imminent danger than that initially apparent just prior to entry.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 98 So. 3d 702 - Hernandez v. State

3. “1. The police must not have entered (or remained in) the home illegally and their presence within it must have been for a legitimate law enforcement purpose; 2. The protective sweep must have been supported by a reasonable, ar-ticulable suspicion that the area to be swept harbored an individual posing a danger to those on the scene; 3. The protective sweep must not have been “a full search” but rather a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found; 4. The protective sweep must have lasted no longer than was necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger and no longer than the police were justified in remaining on the premises.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 98 So. 3d 702 - Hernandez v. State