Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 412 So. 2d 984 - State v. Drott

412 So. 2d 984 - State v. Drott’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
May 2006
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 2006 · most notably 448 So. 2d 1274 - State v. Ruffin (1984), 530 So. 2d 1242 - State v. Roebuck (1988)

1 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

160198219902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Brinegar v. United States · Chimel v. California · New York v. Belton · 410 So. 2d 1381 - State v. Hernandez

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

  1. ““Accordingly, we hold that when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile. It follows from this conclusion that the police may also examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment, for if the passenger compartment is within reach of the arrestee, so also will containers in it be within his reach. [[Image here]] “... A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification.” (Citations omitted).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The search incident to arrest is limited to the area within the arrestee's immediate control. State v. Bradford, 298 So.2d 781 (La.1974). Pursuant to New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), and State v. Drott, 412 So.2d 984 (La.1982), a search incident to arrest extends to the arrestee's automobile. It is permissible to search the interior of an automobile after arresting its occupants when they remain in proximity to the vehicle. State v. Drott, 412 So.2d 984 (La.1982); State v. Nicholas, 397 So.2d 1308 (La. 1981); State v. Bradford, 298 So.2d 781 (La.1974); State v. King, 322 So.2d 205 (La.1975); State v. Wilkens, 364 So.2d 934 (La.1978).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.