232 Md. App. 241 - Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Officer Sheehan: Who are these people in the car with you? Ms. Johnson: Oh. My friends. Officer Sheehan: Friends? Where are y'all coming from? Ms. Johnson: Coming from right over here. Officer Sheehan: Okay. And then stopping you, I could see a lot of movement in the car, all right? Ms. Johnson: Oh. Okay. Officer Sheehan: Okay? You were moving around a lot, he was moving around an awful lot, front passenger, and I couldn't see him because of the salt on the window[.] Ms. Johnson: Oh. Okay. Officer Sheehan: What were you guys doing? Ms. Johnson: Oh, nothing. I was just, I mean, moving around, because I don't understand. I was just (unintelligible), I wasn't doing anything. Officer Sheehan: Okay. All right. Is anything illegal in the car that I need to know about? No drugs? Ms. Johnson: No. Officer Sheehan: No weapons? Ms. Johnson: No, sir. Officer Sheehan: Okay. Where do these guys live? Do they live in the area? Ms. Johnson: Yeah. Officer Sheehan: Okay. How long have you known them for? Ms. Johnson: I don't know. You know, about a month? Officer Sheehan: Do you know if they have anything illegal on them? Ms. Johnson: No. No sir. Officer Sheehan: Okay. Nothing illegal in the car. Ms. Johnson: No. Officer Sheehan: Can I search your vehicle to make sure there's nothing illegal inside there? Ms. Johnson: I'm not understanding why you need to? Officer Sheehan: I just explained why. Because after I stopped you, you guys were moving around an awful lot. Ms. Johnson: I understand tha”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Maryland v. Johnson

2. “The factual circumstances surrounding the stop of Johnson's vehicle fell short of establishing probable cause that she was transporting contraband in the trunk of her car. Because the scope of a warrantless search of an automobile "is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found," Ross , 456 U.S. at 799 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , before the police may conduct a warrantless search of the trunk of a vehicle, the police must either have probable cause to believe drugs are in the car generally, or, as in this case, where the police find drugs on a passenger, they must articulate a particularized basis to search the trunk, such as the reasons for their belief that the passenger had access to the trunk. Here, the officers lacked probable cause to believe that drugs were in the trunk based solely on the drugs found on the breath and in the waistband of the front-seat passenger. Consequently, the suppression court concluded erroneously that the officers were permitted to search the trunk of the car under the Carroll Doctrine.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Maryland v. Johnson

3. “It looked like [Johnson] may have been manipulating something in the center console area. She was bent over it. I could see her hand, her left hand on the steering wheel as she bent over the center console area, reaching in that area and reaching over towards Haqq's seat.... I could see her, portion from her elbow up moving, and I could see her shoulder. I couldn't see her arm. I'm sorry. Her hand. * * * * [Haqq] was moving around in his seat. He appeared to be either reaching under his seat on to the floorboard in front of his seat, and occasionally would lift his rear end up off the seat and then bring it back down, as if he was either trying to reach underneath where he was sitting, or the seat or the floorboard.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Maryland v. Johnson