United States v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 federal appellate · 19 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]n order to qualify for the plain view exception, it must be shown (1) that the initial intrusion which afforded the authorities the plain view was lawful; (2) that the discovery of the evidence was inadvertent; and (3) that the incriminating nature of the evidence was immediately apparent .... The first requirement, a lawful initial intrusion, was clearly met in the instant case since the investigating officers were acting pursuant to a legitimate search warrant allowing a search for any controlled substances located on Clark’s premises. The second requirement, an inadvertent discovery, also appears to have been satisfied. The record does not indicate that the officers had known prior to the search the existence and location of the pistol eventually found in Clark’s bedroom. The third requirement, however, was not met in the instant case. There is no adequate foundation in the record to support the conclusion that the incriminating nature of the pistol was “immediately apparent.” The record fails to reveal a sufficient factual basis which would have given the officers reasonable cause to believe the pistol was contraband .... There was no nexus between the pistol and the crime of unauthorized distribu tion of a controlled substance. Similarly, the record does not indicate that the officers at the time of the initial search were motivated by any specific, reasonable cause to believe the pistol was evidence of any crime. ... Under these circumstances, we regard the actions o”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Van Hoose · 621 F. Supp. 1498 - United States v. Owen

2. “is not of intrusion per se, but of a general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Wright · United States v. Apker

3. “The third requirement, however, was not met in the instant case. There is no adequate foundation in the record to support the conclusion that the incriminating nature of the pistol was `immediately apparent.' * * * In actuality, it was necessary for Agent Gromer to turn over the pistol's serial number to the federal agent and for the federal agent to trace the origin of the pistol before its incriminating nature could be said to be immediately apparent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Riedinger