Schenekl v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 Brown , the Supreme Court ... indicated that the test may involve the consideration of three factors: “the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty.” We recognized these factors and applied them to sobriety checkpoints in State v. Sanchez and Holt v. State. Since Brown , however, the Supreme Court has articulated the balancing test as being merely two-pronged. We believe that the proper balancing test is two-pronged, weighing the State’s interest against the level of intrusion. The effectiveness of a given procedure, the advancement of the public interest, and the availability of alternative means are not separate prongs, but fall within the consideration of whether the action promotes a legitimate governmental interest. This test applies to both random stops and checkpoints.”

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

2. “Prouse is distinguishable from orn-ease in two important respects. First, as previously discussed, there are not effective alternative mechanisms available for enforcing boating regulations. Second, in Prouse , the Court noted that automobile travel is a basic, pervasive, often necessary means of transportation in our society. As such, there is a heightened expectation of privacy while in a car as compared to a boat. Boating is not basic, pervasive, or generally necessary, as is motor vehicle transportation. It is more commonly associated with recreation than necessity.”

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

3. “fact that the headlights and spotlight were on did not transform the encounter into a stop,” where the officer did not park in such a way that prevented the defendant from driving away). . The Texas Parks and Wildlife Code permits ■ a game warden to "stop and board any vessel subject to this chapter [to] determine compliance with applicable provisions.”

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