People v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To adopt the proposition that the search was valid because there was probable cause to arrest puts the cart before the horse. An arrest is an essential requisite to a search incident, otherwise once probable cause existed a potential arrestee would be fair game for any intrusions the police deem appropriate for however long they allow him to remain at large. While it has been consistently held that there is no constitutional right to be arrested, the police may not utilize the existence of probable cause as a trump card to justify warrantless personal searches. Unless and until a person is arrested, a full body search without a warrant or exceptional circumstances is constitutionally unreasonable.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 113 Md. App. 347 - Evans v. State · 786 F. Supp. 676 - Timberlake by Timberlake v. Benton

2. “[A]n essential requisite to a search incident to arrest is that the arrest be lawful and the search be contemporaneous with the arrest____ [0]ur holding today requires that the validity of a search incident to arrest depends ... on unity of time. It may be said that the search and arrest must constitute a single res gestae. The fact that the search precedes the formal arrest is irrelevant as long as the search and arrest are nearly simultaneous so as to constitute one event.... Where the arrest and search occur contemporaneously search incident to arrest reasoning will prevail. In contrast, where the arrest and search are distinct occurrences, as here, the search will be declared invalid.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 113 Md. App. 347 - Evans v. State

3. “The People contend that the instant search is justifiable by virtue of the overriding interest the State has in preserving the undercover status of the buyer. Although we believe that it may be a legitimate police practice to postpone arrests in narcotics cases so that the undercover officer may pursue his work, it is a dangerous non sequitur to conclude that constitutional rights should be diminished as a result. The State cannot have it both ways, they must choose. Here the police made a deliberate choice that the cover was more important than the immediate arrest of the defendant and they must be bound by that choice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 113 Md. App. 347 - Evans v. State