491 So. 2d 1042 - Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Burgess's contention that his mother did not have authority to consent to a *Page 34 search of his bedroom is likewise without merit. As this court stated in Taylor v. State , 491 So.2d 1042 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986): "`"[T]he parent's rights are `superior to the rights of children who live in the house,' which means . . . that the parent's consent would be effective even when the child was present and objecting." W. LaFave, 2 Search and Seizure § 8.4 (1978). "Even if a minor child, living in the bosom of his family, may think of a room as `his,' the overall dominance will be in his parents." United States v. Di Prima , 472 F.2d 550 , 551 (1st Cir. 1973). "`"If a son or daughter, whether or not still a minor, is residing in the home of the parents, generally it is within the authority of the father or mother to consent to a police search of that home which will be effective against the offspring. This is unquestionably so as to areas of common usage, and is also true of the bedroom of the son or daughter when a parent has ready access for purposes of cleaning it or when because of the minority of the offspring the parent is still exercising parental authority. Because in the latter circumstances the parent's rights are `superior to the rights of children who live in the house,' a parent's consent would prevail even if the child were present and objecting and even if the child had taken special measures in an effort to ensure he had exclusive use of the area searched." W. LaFave, 1 ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wimberly v. State · 807 So. 2d 18 - Reeves v. State

2. “'[E]ven constitutional issues must first be raised at the trial level or they are deemed waived.' This basic rule likewise applies to juvenile proceedings. See, e.g., Talley v. State , 483 So.2d 1369 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. quashed , 483 So.2d 1372 (Ala. 1985).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 705 So. 2d 542 - Harris v. State · 518 So. 2d 174 - Smith v. State

3. “"(2) The if he is unable to pay a lawyer and if his parents or guardian have not provided a lawyer, one can be provided at no charge; "(3) That he is not required to say anything and that anything he says may be used against him; and "(4) If his counsel, parent, or guardian is not present, that he has a right to communicate with them, and that, if necessary, reasonable means will be provided for him to do so."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 555 So. 2d 302 - Cleveland v. State