Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 127 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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'As this Court stated in Smith v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 603 , 271 N.E.2d 133 , 136: "The test for probable cause to make an arrest is whether at the time of the arrest the facts and circumstances ... were sufficient to warrant a prudent man of reasonable caution in believing that the arrestee had committed or was committing an offense. Beck v. Ohio, (1964) 379 U.S. 89 , 85 S.Ct. 223 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 .”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. O'Hara v. State · 160 Ind. App. 418 - Kindred v. State

2. ““ * * * The officers’ correct choice of a legal theory to rely on at the time of the arrest is not the factor which provides protection to persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. The barrier to an intrusion on a person’s constitutionally guaranteed ‘zone of privacy’ by way of an arrest for a crime is removed only when the police officers are aware of specific, articulable facts amounting to ‘probable cause’. State v. Smithers, supra. Where the police awareness of such facts is not present, then their choice of a legal theory is irrelevant because the arrest is invalid in any case. Where the police awareness of such facts is present, society’s need to have the person arrested outweighs whatever minimal value the person arrested receives from having the arresting officers choose the correct legal theory for the arrest. The issue is, did the officers, at the time they stopped the car, have knowledge of facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a prudent man of reasonable caution in believing that the drvier (sic) of the car had committed a burglary and assault. We hold that they did have such knowledge.” Smith v. State (Ind.), 271 N.E.2d 133, 137 (1971). And: “We have also been mindful of the fact that the police officer acts within the context of everyday occurrences and is not presumed to be a legal technician. * * * ” People v. Battiste (Ill.App.), 272 N.E.2d 808, 811 (1971). See also State v. Daugherty, 94 Idaho 232 , 486 P.2d 243 (1971).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Miller · 160 Ind. App. 561 - Taylor v. State

3. ““The above, however, is not dispositive on the question of the validity of the search. Assuming that Officer Bishop saw Paxton driving in a manner reasonably thought by Bishop to be a violation of the reckless driving statute, he had sufficient reason to make arrest. The mere fact that he subsequently failed to effect same in no way impinges upon his right at the time of the arrest to make a valid search incident thereto. If Officer Bishop had probable cause to arrest Paxton on a reckless driving charge, that alone in our view would be determinative of his right to conduct the search.” (Our emphasis.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 155 Ind. App. 261 - Mann v. State