344 So. 2d 559 - Silva v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 45 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is only reasonable that the person whose property is the object of a search should have controlling authority to refuse consent. His rights are personal to him and derive from the United States Constitution. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Though a joint occupant should have authority to consent to a search of jointly held premises if the other party is unavailable, a present, objecting party should not have his constitutional rights ignored because of a leasehold or other property interest shared with another. This is particularly true where the police are aware that the person objecting is the one whose constitutional rights are at stake.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Carter v. State · 635 So. 2d 1036 - State v. Martin

2. “cases have generally been decided on the basis of the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy in the area, whether others generally had access to the area, and/or whether the objects searched were the personal effects of the individual unavailable to consent.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 576 So. 2d 953 - Saavedra v. State · 622 So. 2d 952 - Saavedra v. State

3. “Even if we were to decide that Mrs. Brandon had sufficient access to the closet to authorize her to consent to a search, it should have become apparent to the police that the objects in the closet were the personal effects of petitioner. In discussing cases authorizing a wife to consent to a search of the home in which she and her husband live, the Hawaii court stated: `None of them goes so far as to hold that a wife in joint occupancy of the home can permit a search of her husband's personal effects to discover jewelry hidden in a cuff link case in a bedroom bureau drawer.' State v. Evans, 45 Haw. 622 , 372 P.2d 365 (1962) at 372. The Ohio court dealing again with a wife's consent to search her husband's personal effects, stated: `With the emphasis on the wife's rights rather than her defendant-husband's, the rights of the husband have not disappeared but merely diminished in stature. To allow a search of his personal effects would unduly destroy the husband's rights against unreasonable searches.' State v. McCarthy, 20 Ohio App.2d 275 , 49 Ohio Ops.2d 364, 253 N.E.2d 789, 795 (1969), aff'd. [ 26 Ohio St.2d 87 ] 269 N.E.2d 424 [(1971)]. * * * It should have been apparent to the police officers that the closet was set aside for petitioner's use. It held his belongings, and his rights were infringed by the police in searching them without his consent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 927 So. 2d 52 - Marganet v. State