Baker 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. “The United States Supreme Court has made it very clear that when invoking the Miranda right to counsel, the accused must be unambiguous and unequivocal. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 , 114 S.Ct. 2350 , 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994). See also Whitaker v. State, 348 Ark. 90 , 71 S.W.3d 567 (2002), and Higgins v. State, 317 Ark. 555 , 879 S.W.2d 424 (1994). When invoking the right to counsel, the Court has said: If a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal such that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, our precedents do not require cessation of questioning. Higgins, 317 Ark. at 562 , 879 S.W.2d at 427 (quoting Davis, 512 U.S. at 461 , 114 S.Ct. at 2356 ). In recognizing the balance between the necessity for law enforcement officers to gather information to assist in an investigation and the accused’s constitutional right to counsel, the Court said: [I]f we were to require questioning to cease if a suspect makes a statement that might be a request for an attorney, ... police officers would be forced to make difficult judgment calls about whether the suspect in fact wants a lawyer even though he hasn’t said so, with the threat of suppression if they guess wrong. We therefore hold that, after a knowing and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights, law enforcement officers may contin”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2013 Ark. App. 247 - Dodge v. State

2. “a person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled. In the absence of some such evidence, otherwise inoffensive contact between a member of the public and the police cannot, as a matter of law, amount to a seizure of that person.”

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

3. “[I]f a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal such that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, our precedents do not require cessation of questioning.”

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