Daniel James Weems v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As a threshold matter, Brooks’s argument is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's discussion of implied consent laws in McNeely. As the Supreme Court recognized in McNeely, implied consent laws, which 'require motorists, as a condition of operating a motor vehicle within the State, to consent to [blood alcohol concentration] testing if they are arrested or otherwise detained on suspicion of a drunk-driving offense,' are ‘legal tools’ states continue to have to enforce their drunk driving laws. The Court noted that these laws typically require suspected drunk drivers to take a test for the presence of alcohol and mandate that a driver’s license will be revoked if they refuse a test. By using this 'legal tool’ and revoking a driver’s license for refusing a test, a state is doing the exact thing Brooks claims it cannot do — conditioning the privilege of driving on agreeing to a warrantless search.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Flonnory v. State

2. “(b) a peace officer shall require the taking of a specimen of the person’s breath or blood under any of the following circumstances if the officer arrests the person for an offense under Chapter 49, Penal Code, involving the operation of a motor vehicle' ... and the person refuses the officer’s request to submit to the taking of a specimen voluntarily: [[Image here]] (3) at the time of the arrest, the officer possesses or receives reliable information from a credible source that the person: [[Image here]] (B) on two or more occasions, has been previously convicted of or placed on community supervision for an offense under Section 49.04 [misdemeanor DWI]....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Munoz

3. “(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or (B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Antonio Ruiz Perez v. State