337 So. 2d 165 - Herriott v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'display of weapons is a coercive factor that sharply reduces the likelihood of freely given consent,' " 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure , § 8.2(b) at 181 (2d ed. 1987), the determination of voluntariness requires "careful sifting of the unique facts and circumstances of each case.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hall v. State · Gass v. State

2. “"[T]he question whether a consent to a search was in fact 'voluntary' or was the product of duress or coercion, express or implied, is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martinez v. State · 640 So. 2d 22 - Kennedy v. State

3. “"Notwithstanding the United States Supreme Court's assertion that its cases on the subject of the extent of a search which may be made without a warrant following a lawful arrest `cannot be satisfactorily reconciled,' it now seems to be fairly well established that there are at least six exceptions under which warrantless searches have been held valid, viz: "(1) In `plain view,' see Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); "(2) With `consent' voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly given, see Bumper v. North Carolina , 391 U.S. 543 , *Page 206 88 S.Ct. 1788 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968) and Johnson v. Zerbst , 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); "(3) As `incident to a lawful arrest,' see Abel v. United States , 362 U.S. 217 , 80 S.Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960); Draper v. United States , 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); "(4) In `hot pursuit' or `emergency' situations, see Warden v. Hayden , 387 U.S. 294 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967); Johnson v. United States , 333 U.S. 10 , 68 S.Ct. 367 , 92 L.Ed. 436 (1947); State v. Sutton , (Mo. 1970) 454 S.W.2d 481 ; "(5) Where `exigent circumstances' exist coincidental with `probable cause' (as in the case of movables), see Chambers v. Maroney , 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); and, "(6) In `stop and frisk' situations, see Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 388 So. 2d 202 - Reid v. State