State v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Although some courts have held that failure by the State to automatically preserve a breath sample is tantamount to suppression of evidence, those holdings have come where the defendant has shown that the preservation was scientifically possible. Garcia v. District Court, 21st Judicial District, 197 Colo. 38 , 589 P.2d 924 (1979); Baca v. Smith, 124 Ariz. 353 , 604 P.2d 617 (1979). But see State v. Young, 228 Kan. 355 , 614 P.2d 441 (1980). Lee, who was the moving party, had the burden of making a showing on the record that there are recognized scientifically developed means by which a breath sample can be preserved for later testing. He failed to do so when he offered no evidence at the hearing. It is impossible for this court to equate the mere failure by the State to encapsulate and preserve a breath sample to a destruction or suppression of the evidence absent a showing in the record to support a finding that the breath samples could be effectively preserved for later independent testing.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 452 So. 2d 1382 - Dove v. City of Montgomery