396 So. 2d 125 - Murray v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[c]lear and convincing evidence of waiver is required, and the burden of proving waiver is on the State as the party claiming it”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McLemore v. State · State v. Kyles

2. ““The consent must be unequivocal specific, and freely and intelligently given. There must be clear and positive testimony. (Citation omitted.) Courts indulge in every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental Fourth Amendment rights. (Citation omitted.) ‘An open door is not a waiver of such rights. A peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law.’ (Citation omitted).” “In United States v. Smith, 308 F.2d 657 (2nd Cir.1962), it was stated: ‘When a law enforcement officer knocks at the door, identifies himself, and asks to be allowed to search the premises, the acquiescence thus obtained is generally not considered to be voluntary consent....’ ‘When the State relies upon consent to justify search and seizure of evidence to incriminate, the consent must be given under circumstances to justify a waiver of known rights. This is not a matter that can be presumed, but the State has the burden of proving that the consent or waiver was given voluntarily without inducement or coercion and with knowledge of the right to refuse the request to search.’ ” Murray v. State, 396 So.2d 125, 129 (Ala.Cr.App.1980), cert. denied 396 So.2d 132 (Ala.1981).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 480 So. 2d 66 - State v. Pybus

3. “"(1) In `plain view', see Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); "(2) With `consent' voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly given, see Bumper v. North Carolina , 391 U.S. 543 , 88 S.Ct. 1788 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968) and Johnson v. Zerbst , 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); "(3) As `incident to a lawful arrest', see Abel v. United States , 362 U.S. 217 , 80 S.Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960); Draper v. United States , 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); "(4) In `hot pursuit' or `emergency' situations, see Warden v. Hayden , 387 U.S. 294 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967); Johnson v. United States , 333 U.S. 10 , 68 S.Ct. 367 , 92 L.Ed. [436] (1947); State v. Sutton (Mo. 1970) 454 S.W.2d 481 ; "(5) Where `exigent circumstances' exist coincidental with `probable cause' (as in the case of movables), see Chambers v. Maroney , 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); and "(6) In `stop and frisk' situations, see Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed. 889 (1968)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 456 So. 2d 114 - Sawyer v. State