State v. Shepherd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Arrest is the taking of one person into custody by another. To constitute arrest there must be an actual restraint of the person. The restraint may be imposed by force or may result from the submission of the person arrested to the custody of the one arresting him.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. DeBlieux · State v. Jarmon

2. “"In the instant case, as in Draper, and Gates , the informant predicted future acts of the suspect and those acts occurred and were corroborated by police surveillance.... As indicated in Draper and Gates , the corroboration of the `innocent' behavior provides probable cause to believe the allegation of drug possession in the informant's tip is reliable." Shepherd, supra, at 616 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Rigsby · State v. Vinson

3. “The State bears the burden of proving the admissibility of evidence seized during a search without a warrant. La. C.Cr.P. art. 703(D). A search conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable under the fourth amendment, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). One of these is the "automobile" exception which is based upon the existence of probable cause to search the vehicle and exigent circumstances which render it impractical to secure a warrant. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970). A second exception to the rule is that a search may be conducted without a warrant when it is an incident to a lawful arrest. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). When the occupant of an automobile is arrested, the police, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, may search the passenger compartment of the automobile. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); State v. Singletary, 442 So.2d 707 (La.App. 1 Cir.1983).”

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