456 So. 2d 857 - Lott v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Consent to an illegal search is a waiver of the constitutional protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. The burden is upon the prosecution to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that consent was knowingly and freely given. When the subject of a search is not in custody, and the State attempts to justify a search on the basis of his consent, the Fourth Amendment requires that the State demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied. Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances, and while the subject’s knowledge of a right to refuse a search is a factor to be taken into account, the prosecution is not required to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent. The burden of proof that is to be borne by the prosecution in proving a valid consent is no greater than proof by a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations omitted.]” Lott v. State, 456 So.2d 857, 859 (Ala.Cr.App.1984).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kyles · 480 So. 2d 66 - State v. Pybus

2. “'The law is clear that a warrantless search of an automobile is justified where there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband.' Lott v. State , 456 So.2d 857 , 859-60 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984). 'The test for probable cause is "whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or search, would warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that the action taken was appropriate.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Callahan v. State · 698 So. 2d 179 - Ivey v. State

3. “'The law is clear that a warrantless search of an automobile is justified where there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband.' Lott v. State , 456 So.2d 857 , 859-60 (Ala.Crim.App. 1984). 'The test for probable cause is”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Callahan v. State · 549 So. 2d 119 - Perry v. State