State v. Milligan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 21 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. “Searches and seizures. SECTION 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to he searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Krajewski · State v. Entrekin

2. ““We now know from the Supreme Court’s reasoning in [cases subsequent to Schmerber] that the seizure of blood in Schmerber ‘fell within the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.’ [Citation omitted.] Seizures of evidence based on exigent circumstances do not, of course, have to be accompanied by an arrest. [Citation omitted.] Accordingly, an arrest is not essential to support the intrusion in the absence of a warrant, so long as the three explicit Schmerber requirements are met. Thus, the interpretation of Schmerber [which required a suspect to be under arrest at the time the sample is taken] is no longer sustainable in light of [subsequent Supreme Court cases.] “The result we reach today does no violence to the Fourth Amendment or tire protections it affords to those suspected of crime. Before a law enforcement officer may lawfully take a blood sample without consent or a warrant, he or she must have probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed an offense of which tire current state of one’s blood will constitute evidence. [Citation omitted.] The requirement of a contemporaneous arrest adds nothing to that constitutional protection; the probable cause threshold in tírese circumstances remains the same. [Citation omitted.] There is nothing about an arrest that aids tire suspect. “In addition to probable cause, the other Schmerber requirements remain in place. The officer must still reasonably believe that an emergency exists in which the delay ”

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

3. ““We emphasize that, although the Schmerber Court referred to the search as ‘incident to petitioner s arrest,’ its holding did not turn on the existence of an arrest. Rather, die Court relied on the exigency created by the evanescent nature of blood alcohol and the danger that important evidence would disappear without an immediate search. “From a fair reading of [Cupp v.] Murphy and Schmerber togedier, we conclude that it is the evanescent nature of the evidence sought, not the existence or absence of an arrest, that constitutionally justifies the kind of action taken by the officers in this case. We hold that, under the federal constitution, an arrest as defined in statutory law is not required prior to the warrantless extraction of blood for the purposes of determining blood-alcohol content, so long as the extraction is based on probable cause sufficiently strong to have justified such an arrest.” 304 Or. at 668-69 .”

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