People v. Mitchell’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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[T]hird-party ownership of the auto or ‘containers’ therein would not necessarily prevent the arrestee from gaining access to those items. It should not, therefore, bar the police from searching them in the same manner as if they were owned by the arrestee. The Supreme Court has observed that the justification for this type of search is ‘not that the arrestee has no privacy interest in the container, but that the lawful custodial arrest justifies the infringement of any privacy interest the arrestee may have.’ Belton, supra, 453 U.S. at 461 , 101 S.Ct. at 2864 . So too, we think that the arrest justifies the reasonable infringement on any privacy interest that another passenger in the automobile may have in that container.'” Staten v. U.S., [ 562 A.2d 90, 92 (1989)] We agree and note such a conclusion is consistent with the Supreme Court’s goal in Belton to create a bright-line rule: “In short, ‘[a] single familiar standard is essential to guide police officers, who have only limited time and expertise to reflect on and balance the social and individual interests involved in the specific circumstances they confront.’ [Citation.]” (Belton, supra, 453 U.S. at 458 , 101 S.Ct. at 2863 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 171 Md. App. 582 - Purnell v. State

2. “the scope of his constitutional protection”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 Cal. App. 4th 308 - People v. Branner