State v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Footnote 2 in the original opinion at page 377 is replaced with a new footnote 2: In this case, the officer believed that defendant might be carrying a firearm after learning during the background check that defendant was licensed to carry a concealed handgun. For purposes of our legal analysis, however, it does not matter why the officer perceived a risk that defendant might be carrying a gun during field sobriety tests.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 295 Or. App. 277 - State v. Toll · State v. Miller

2. “'reasonably related' " test in the context of officer safety related inquiries: "For a weapons inquiry conducted in the course of a traffic investigation to be reasonably related to that investigation and reasonably necessary to effectuate it, an officer must have reasonable, circumstance-specific concerns for the officer's safety or the safety of other persons who are present. To justify an officer's weapons inquiry, the officer's safety concerns need not arise from facts particular to the detained individual; they can arise from the totality of the circumstances that the officer faces. However, if the officer does not have at least a circumstance-specific safety concern, then the officer's weapons inquiry has no logical relationship to the traffic investigation. * * * " * * * To demonstrate that an officer's weapons inquiry is reasonably related to a traffic investigation and reasonably necessary to effectuate it, the state must present evidence that (1) the officer perceived a circumstance-specific danger and decided that an inquiry about weapons was necessary to address that danger; and (2) the officer's perception and decision were objectively reasonable. To determine whether that standard is met, a court must consider not only the factual circumstances that existed when the officer acted, but also the officer's articulation of the danger that the officer perceived and the reason for the officer's inquiry.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 295 Or. App. 277 - State v. Toll

3. “Although the particularity requirements of Bates * * * must be met before an officer may conduct a search or a patdown search for weapons, those requirements do not apply when an officer has seized an individual and has a constitutional basis to continue to temporarily detain and question him or her. In that circumstance, if the officer's weapons inquiry is reasonably related to and reasonably necessary to effectuate the officer's traffic investigation, then * * * it is lawful.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 295 Or. App. 277 - State v. Toll