280 N.J. Super. 349 - State v. Kadelak’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he only evidence submitted by the State before the Municipal court was the testimony of Patrolman Mains who was really unsure of the procedure leading up to the roadblock. No evidence was offered in support of the reasons for random roadside inspections except for the existence of legislative authority. Further, no empirical data was submitted to assist in examining the balance between the intrusion on individual rights against the promotion of some legitimate governmental interest; for example, the frequency of vehicles which have passed inspection at a state facility but have been found, on roadside inspection, to have developed defects; or vehicles which have passed inspection at a private facility notwithstanding defects found on roadside inspections. [[Image here]] We recognize that highway safety is certainly a matter of extreme importance to the public and may warrant this minimal intrusion upon the travelling public's right to be let alone. On the other hand, we can envision a motorist who has just had his vehicle inspected after a long wait, with the current inspection sticker displayed on its windshield, on his way to an important appointment, not displaying any evidence of any equipment violations and being stopped simply because he is the fifth car in a line of traffic. Should he be subjected to this intrusion upon his reasonable expectation of privacy.... We conclude that the record in this case is insufficient to properly address this important issue and ther”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 667 So. 2d 279 - Campbell v. State

2. “The appropriate question is not whether a particular method is the best alternative or even whether it is a better alternative, but, rather, whether the method chosen is reasonably effective in advancing the State's interest. See Commonwealth v. Shields, 402 Mass. 162 , 521 N.E. 2d 987, 991-92 (1988) (noting that the majority of courts that have considered the issue have rejected the argument that the State must make a showing of "no less intrusive yet equally effective alternative").”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 328 N.J. Super. 205 - State v. Flowers

3. “The director shall conduct random roadside examinations of motor vehicles required to he inspected in this State to provide a continuous monitoring of motor vehicles. Each year at least 1% of the total number of motor vehicles registered in the State shall be inspected by roadside examination teams under the supervision of the director.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 667 So. 2d 279 - Campbell v. State