State v. Prahin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It has been held that police may open closed but unlocked containers within the place to which consent was given, especially if police have indicated that they are searching for a small object which might be concealed in such a container. 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.1(c) (West 1987). See, United States v. Kapperman, 764 F.2d 786, 794 (11th Cir. 1985), reh’g denied 770 F.2d 1084 (consent to search automobile and remove “ ‘whatever documents or items of property whatsoever, which they deem pertinent to the investigation,’ ” authorized police to search unlocked suitcase in automobile, “ ‘as documents or other items of property cannot necessarily be expected to be lying loose in an automobile’ ”); U.S. v. Anderson, 859 F.2d 1171, 1176 (3d Cir. 1988) (where defendant consented to search of automobile for “ ‘any letters[,] documents, papers, materials or other property which is perti nent to the investigation,’ ” police were authorized to look in the trunk and open closed bags); People v. Mirenda, 57 N.Y.2d 261 , 442 N.E.2d 49 , 455 N.Y.S.2d 752 (1982) (consent to search automobile allowed search of attache case within trunk); U.S. v. Sealey, 830 F.2d 1028 (9th Cir. 1987) (consent to search premises extended to travel bag, as consent was to search for gun which could have been hidden there).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 8 Neb. Ct. App. 430 - State v. Claus

2. “In order for the consent to search to be effective, however, it must be a free and unconstrained choice and not the product of a will overborne. ... In other words, the consent must be given voluntarily and not as the result of duress or coercion, whether express, implied, physical, or psychological. . . . The determination of whether a consent to search is voluntarily given is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the giving of the consent.... In examining all the surrounding circumstances to determine if in fact the consent to search was coerced, account must be taken of subtly coercive police questions, as well as the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person who consents.... The burden is upon the government to prove that the consent to search was voluntarily given.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Shurter

3. “person is seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was not free to leave”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Tingle