State v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is fundamental that a search incidental to an arrest may not precede the arrest where the evidence discovered during the search forms the basis of probable cause for the arrest. (Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 , 20 L.Ed.2d 917 , 88 S.Ct. 1889 .) “Where there is probable cause for an arrest, a search of an accused’s person incidental to arrest may either precede or follow the formal arrest if the events closely follow. [Citations omitted.] “The justification for such an intrusion is the probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime and the need for immediate action to prevent the use of weapons against the arresting officer or destruction of evidence of the crime. (Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 .) Postponement of the further intrusion of arrest does not remove the justification for the search and in no way prejudices the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. (United States v. Riggs, [ 474 F.2d 699 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied 414 U.S. 820 (1973).])” State v. Barnes, 220 Kan. 25, 28-29 , 551 P.2d 815 (1976).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Means · 5 Kan. App. 2d 189 - State v. Sanders

2. ““In determining the admissibility of a statement of the defendant obtained during custodial interrogation the trial court must weigh any conflicting evidence and make findings that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. When this is done the court’s findings will not be disturbed on appellate review.” (Syl. 6.)”

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

3. ““It is not necessary that the evidence giving rise to such probable cause be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt nor must it be sufficient to prove that guilt is more probable than not. It is only necessary that the evidence leads the officer to believe that guilt is more than a mere possibility. (State v. Curtis, 217 Kan. 717 , 538 P.2d 1383 .)””

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