State v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In a plurality opinion the Court [of Appeals of South Carolina] held the `automobile exception' to the warrant requirement was not applicable because Cox's car was found at his residence. The Court, relying upon California v. Carney , 471 U.S. 386 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985), concluded that `an automobile found parked at a person's home is protected from warrantless searches.' 287 S.C. [260 ,] 264, 335 S.E.2d [809 ,] 811 [(Ct.App. 1985)]. "We disagree. "The automobile exception was first articulated in Carroll v. United States , 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). Since Carroll , the doctrine has been applied on a case-by-case basis to various sets of facts. See generally cases cited in Annot. , 66 L.Ed.2d 882 , Validity of Warrantless Search of Motor Vehicles. "The two bases for the exception are: (1) the ready mobility of automobiles and the potential that evidence may be lost before a warrant is obtained; and (2) the lessened expectation of privacy in motor vehicles which are subject to governmental regulation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 948 So. 2d 583 - Harris v. State · State v. Weaver

2. “The [California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985) ] Court makes clear that under the automobile exception, probable cause alone is sufficient to justify a warrantless search. As the Court stated, “the pervasive schemes of regulation, which necessarily lead to reduced expectations of privacy, and the exigencies attendant to ready mobility justify searches [of vehicles] without prior recourse to the authority of a magistrate so long as the overriding standard of probable cause is met.” That is, the inherent mobility of automobiles provides the requisite exigency.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Brannon · 948 So. 2d 583 - Harris v. State

3. “When a vehicle is being used on the highways, or if it is readily capable of such use and is found stationary in a place not regularly used for residential purposes — temporary or otherwise — the two justifications for the vehicle exception come into play.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 948 So. 2d 583 - Harris v. State