28 Ohio App. 3d 61 - State v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““At first blush, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Rakas v. Illinois (1978), 439 U.S. 128 , [ 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 ], seems to dispose of appellant’s claim. Like the petitioners in Rakas , appellant had no possessory interest in Adams’ vehicle; his status was nothing more than that of a passenger. In Rakas , the Supreme Court held that mere presence does not entitle one to challenge the search of a vehicle. That passengers are in a car with the permission of the owner is not determinative of whether they have a legitimate expectation of privacy. “The petitioners in Rakas , however, did not challenge the initial stop of the vehicle in which they rode, or their removal from it. Two concurring justices and four dissenters found this to be significant. Thus, the decision in Rakas presumably does not mean that a mere passenger automatically lacks standing to challenge the search of a vehicle, even if the search has come about by exploitation of an infringement of his personal Fourth Amendment rights. See Lewis v. State (Tex.Crim.App.1984), 664 S.W.2d 345 ; People v. Kunath (1981), 99 Ill.App.3d 201 [ 54 Ill.Dec. 621 ], 425 N.E.2d 486 . “At fn. 1 of our recent decision in State v. McClendon (Jan. 14, 1985), Fayette App. No. CA84-06-006, unreported, [ 1985 WL 8146 ], this court stated: “ Tn Rakas, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States did not hold that those persons who are “merely passengers” in a motor vehicle will never have standing to object to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 84 Ohio App. 3d 529 - State v. Goodlow