42 So. 3d 368 - State v. Jackson’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. “In the present case, Officer Diel’s entry into the vehicle used in violation of the contract between Enterprise and the renter clearly did not violate any privacy rights of Enterprise as the owner of the vehicle with an interest in the legitimate use of its property within the limits of its agreement with the renter. With respect to the driver who had possession of the vehicle, no evidence was adduced at the suppression hearing as to the identity of the person who rented the vehicle from Enterprise or how the driver of the vehicle then came to possess it out of the renter’s presence, i.e., whether he did so with or without the renter’s permission. In the latter case, the driver would have had no more legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle than he would have in a stolen vehicle and defendant , as his passenger' would have no derivative right as a matter of La. Const, art. I, § 5 to assert a violation of those non-existent privacy interests. As to the former ease, although a standard car -rental form provides that only the person renting the vehicle or another authorized person may use the vehicle, see United States v. Boruff, 909 F.2d 111, 114 (5th Cir.1990), it is not uncommon for persons to rent cars for the benefit of someone else or consent to the use of a vehicle he or .she has rented. Even then, substantial authority exists that a person in possession and control of a car rented by someone else who has voluntarily delivered the vehicle to him for his own use ha”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Freeman

2. “the officer's warrantless entry of the vehicle exceeded the scope of a search incidental to a lawful arrest of the driver for a traffic violation and was otherwise unsupported [by] any reasonable belief the vehicle contained evidence of a crime.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 65 So. 3d 679 - State Ex Rel. Ah

3. “probable cause to search any closed containers he found inside . . . when the officer smelled the distinct odor of marijuana emanating from the interior of the car.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 65 So. 3d 679 - State Ex Rel. Ah