State v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'If ... the police lack probable cause to believe that an object in plain view is contraband without conducting some further search of the object ... the plain-view doctrine cannot justify its seizure.' "). But even if the officer's suspicions about the box on the backseat were to be viewed as sufficient to establish the right to seize the object, the plain-view exception, by its definition, did not permit the further search of the box without a warrant or another established exception. Recently, in the context of the search of a purse and billfold retrieved from an automobile, we instructed: "Where a container is involved, complying with the warrant requirement or one of its well-delineated exceptions is required because the Fourth Amendment provides protection to the owner of every container if the container conceals its contents from plain view.”

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

2. “the circumstances did not present an exigency or an emergency that required an immediate verification of Evans' identity or give rise to the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement. Compare United States v. Dunavan, 485 F.2d 201 (6th Cir. 1973) (upholding search when driver was foaming at the mouth and unable to talk and officer was seeking information explaining nature of the defendant's condition and the best means of treating it), and Evans v. State, 364 So.2d 93 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978) (holding officer lawfully searched purse for medical information that would account for driver's condition of being unable to communicate in any way), with Morris v. State, 908 P.2d 931 (Wyo. 1995) (holding search of effects not permissible when individual was conscious and able to ask and answer questions).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 59 Kan. App. 2d 28 - State v. Smith

3. “the Legislature did not impose a duty on officers that would justify invading the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment when . . . the driver is conscious and able to answer the officer's questions about her identity”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 59 Kan. App. 2d 28 - State v. Smith