State v. Schrier’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 18 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment applies to personal luggage taken from an automobile to the same degree it applies to luggage in other locations. Thus, insofar as the police are entitled to search such luggage without a warrant, their actions must be justified under some exception to the warrant requirement other than that applicable to automobiles stopped on the highway. Where—as in the present case—the police, without endangering themselves or risking loss of the evidence, lawfully have detained one suspected of criminal activity and secured his suitcase, they should delay the search thereof until after judicial approval has been obtained. In this way, constitutional rights of suspects to prior judicial review of searches will be fully protected.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Wallace

2. “Similarly, in some cases the contents of a package will be open to “plain view,” thereby obviating the need for a warrant. See Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236 , 88 S.Ct. 992, 993 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1067, 1068 (1968) (per curiam). There will be difficulties in determining which parcels taken from an automobile require a warrant for their search and which do not. Our decision in this case means only that a warrant generally is required before personal luggage can be searched and that the extent to which the Fourth Amendment applies to containers and other parcels depends not at all upon whether they are seized from an automobile.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Roth

3. “to turn on whether, under the circumstances, [Schreier] had a reasonable expec tation of privacy regarding the contents. One of the circumstances was the presence of a [clear] plastic bag of marijuana on the exterior of the knapsack, protruding two or three inches. This indicates a certain nonchalance about the marijuana. True, the plastic bag on the outside would probably indicate only possession, whereas the articles inside .indicated possession with intent to deliver. Nonetheless, placing the plastic bag on the outside reveals defendant’s attitude in the matter of privacy or secrecy with respect to the marijuana....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Wallace