227 W. Va. 1 - Ullom v. Miller’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. “[L]aw enforcement personnel are expected to engage in activities and interact with citizens in a number of ways beyond the investigation of criminal conduct. Such activities include a general safety and welfare role for police officers in helping citizens who may be in peril or who may otherwise be in need of some form of assistance.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roy McGlenn, Sr. v. United States · 232 N.C. App. 120 - State v. Smathers

2. “[t]he Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution of West Virginia protect the public from unreasonable searches and seizures by governmental officials. These protections come into play when a citizen is “seized” by a government actor such as a police officer. A person has been “seized” within the meaning of our “search and seizure” jurisprudence when, in view of the context of all the eircumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe that he is not free to leave. Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573 , 108 S.Ct. 1975, 1979 , 100 L.Ed.2d 565, 572 (1988) (quoting United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 , 100 S.Ct. 1870, 1877 , 64 L.Ed.2d 497, 509 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, Rehnquist, J.J.)); see also State v. Todd Andrew H., 196 W.Va. 615, 619-20 , 474 S.E.2d 545, 549-50 (1996) (applying Chestemut standard to Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution of West Virginia).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 229 W. Va. 114 - Miller v. Chenoweth

3. “[n]ot all contact between a police officer and a citizen rises to the level wherein constitutional protections are implicated];,].... Where an encounter rises to the level of a “search” or “seizure,” both the Fourth Amendment and Article III, Section 6 require the search or seizure to be reasonable and that the governmental actor have probable cause and, absent a recognized exception, a validly issued warrant. Accordingly, searches and seizures performed without a valid warrant are presumed to be unreasonable, and will be lawful only if the search and seizure falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2032 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 575-576 (1971); accord Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 585 (1967) (valid warrant requirement supported by probable cause “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 229 W. Va. 114 - Miller v. Chenoweth