Cooper v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`[A]n individual's expectation of privacy in a vehicle and its contents may not survive if probable cause is given to believe that the vehicle is transporting contraband.' United States v. Ross , 456 U.S. 798 , 823 [ 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 2172 , 72 L.Ed.2d 572 ] (1982). . . . The law is `clear that the justification to conduct such a warrantless search does not vanish once the car has been immobilized.' Michigan v. Thomas , 458 U.S. 259 , 261 [ 102 S.Ct. 3079 , 3080-3081 , 73 L.Ed.2d 750 ] (1982). See also Florida v. Meyers , 466 U.S. [380], 104 S.Ct. 1852 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 381 ] (1984), United States v. Ross , supra, Texas v. White , 423 U.S. at 67 [ 96 S.Ct. 304 , 46 L.Ed.2d 209 ] (1975), and Chambers v. Maroney , 399 U.S. 42 [ 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 ] (1970). In fact, `[t]here is no requirement that the warrantless search of a vehicle occur contemporaneously with its lawful seizure.' United States v. Johns , [___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 881 , 83 L.Ed.2d 890 ] supra. Therefore the officers' latter two searches that occurred approximately one hour and two hours later, respectively, were constitutionally permissible. "The appellant also argues that there were no exigent circumstances, and, therefore, that the searches were not valid. The presence of exigent circumstances coupled with probable cause to search is a separate and distinct exception to the warrant requirement. The appellant's intermingling of the two exceptions is understandable, because the distinction between the two”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 477 So. 2d 522 - Channell v. State · 531 So. 2d 682 - Robinette v. State

2. “"To make such a determination [as to probable cause] '[t]he facts are judged on the basis of whether a reasonably prudent man of the officer's experience and training, looking at the "totality of the circumstances and the inferences" therefrom, would conclude that there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle or the individual is involved in violating the law.' United States v. Thomas , 536 F. Supp. 736 , 743 (M.D.Ala. 1982)."”

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