469 So. 2d 1337 - McElroy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 2018
10 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Carroll v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Payton v. New York · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · United States v. Cortez
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"As the Court frequently has remarked, probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard. It merely requires that the facts available to the officer would 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief,' Carroll v. United States , 267 U.S. 132 , 162 [ 45 S.Ct. 280 , 288 , 69 L.Ed. 543 ] (1925), that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A 'practical, non-technical' probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required. Brinegar v. United States , 338 U.S. 160 , 176 [ 69 S.Ct. 1302 , 1311 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 ] (1949). Moreover, our observation in United States v. Cortez , 449 U.S. 411 , 418 [ 101 S.Ct. 690 , 695 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 ] (1981), regarding 'particularized suspicion,' is equally applicable to the probable-cause requirement: " 'The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities. Long before the law of probabilities was articulated as such, practical people formulated certain common-sense conclusions about human behavior; jurors as factfinders are permitted to do the same — and so are law enforcement officers. Finally, the evidence thus collected must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement.' "”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bishop v. State · Williams v. State“"Any police officer is hereby authorized to remove or cause to be removed to the nearest garage or other place of safety any vehicle found upon a highway when: "When the person driving or in control of such vehicle is arrested for an alleged offense for which the officer is required by law to take the person arrested before a proper magistrate without unnecessary delay."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ringer v. State“[T]he Supreme] Court declared the ... phrase 'immediately apparent' an 'unhappy choice of words,' for it 'can be taken to imply that an unduly high degree of certainty as to the incriminatory character of the evidence is necessary for an application of the”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cheatwood
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.