Benson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is well-settled that police officers may conduct a warrantless inventory search of a vehicle that is being impounded in order to protect an owner’s property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987); see also, Welch v. State, 330 Ark. 158 , 955 S.W.2d 181 (1997). An inventory search, however, may not be used by the police as a guise for “general rummaging” for incriminating evidence. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 , 110 S.Ct. 1632 , 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990); Welch v. State, supra. Hence, the police may impound a vehicle and inventory its contents only if the actions are taken in good faith and in accordance with standard police procedures or policies. See Colorado v. Bertine, supra; Florida v. Wells, supra; Welch v. State, supra. In Welch v. State, we clarified that these standard procedures do not have to be in writing, and that they may be established by an officer’s testimony during a suppression hearing.”

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

2. “A vehicle impounded in consequence of an arrest, or retained in official custody for other good cause, may be searched at such times and to such extent as is reasonably necessary for safekeeping of the vehicle and its contents.”

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