State v. Loudermilk’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The application and attached affidavit fully established probable cause to believe that opium was concealed on the described premises, or on the persons of those present. Narcotics, such as heroin, are easily concealed on a person and may readily be disposed of. Where, as in this case, probable cause to believe that a drug is kept or concealed on certain described premises is established to the satisfaction of a proper magistrate, the search of a person found on the premises in the execution of a search warrant is not only reasonable, but necessary to secure effective enforcement of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act.” 208 Kan. at 898 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McClelland · 19 Kan. App. 2d 786 - State v. Vandiver

2. ““In the execution of a search warrant the person executing the same may reasonably detain and search any person in the place at the time: “(a) To protect himself from attack, or “(b) To prevent the disposal or concealment of any things particularly described in the warrant.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 5 Kan. App. 2d 44 - State v. Peters · State v. McClelland

3. ““. . . The need for a search of the person will . . . usually arise . . . when the officer first arrives at the place where the goods are to be seized. The protection is given in all cases since the danger to be avoided is always present. In addition, it is clear that the purpose of the warrant would be thwarted were not the officer given the second power ... to search the person for the things to be seized. The need for this power arises most often in the narcotics cases where disposition is most easily effected. “ ‘Any person on the premises’ would include the limits prescribed in the warrant itself. “The committee felt that this section is necessary because it gives the officer a clear outline of his power in executing the warrant and removes doubt from a rather cloudy area of the law. Furthermore, if a judge decides there is probable cause for issuing the warrant in the first place, then this power given to the officer which is parasitic to the warrant should not be considered excessive in the hands of the executing officer.” (1. c. 896.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. McClelland