State v. Phifer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This Court, however, is not bound by the State's concession. The general rule is that stipulations as to the law are of no validity.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 248 N.C. App. 744 - State v. Hancock · 171 N.C. App. 46 - State v. Sanders

2. ““Since an inventory search may be undertaken without a warrent or probable cause, it is potentially subject to abuse by police officers intent upon ferreting out evidence of criminal activity. Cognizant of this danger, the Court in Op-perman made it clear that the validity of an inventory search under the Fourth Amendment is premised upon its being a benign, neutral, administrative procedure designed primarily to safeguard the contents of lawfully impounded automobiles until owners are able to reclaim them. Accordingly, the Court stressed that inventory searches should be ‘carried out in accordance with standard procedures in the local police department, a factor tending to insure that the intrusion would be limited in scope to the extent necessary to carry out the caretaking function.’ 428 U.S. at 375 , 96 S.Ct. at 3100 . (Citations omitted.) The Court also pointed out that standardized inventory procedures could not be utilized as a ‘pretext concealing an investigatory motive.’ Id. at 376 , 96 S.Ct. at 3092 . Finally, while generally approving the reasonableness of standardized inventory searches, the Court noted that the reasonableness of any given inventory search depended upon the circumstances presented by each case. Id. at 372-73 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Nelson

3. ““In the interests of public safety and as part of what the Court has called ‘community caretaking functions,’ automobiles are frequently taken into police custody. Vehicle accidents present one such occasion. To permit the uninterrupted flow of traffic and in some circumstances to preserve evidence, disabled or damaged vehicles will often be removed from the highways or streets at the behest of police engaged solely in caretaking and traffic-control activities. . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Peaten