State v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 20 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It's also common practice for state troopers to advise people of their Miranda rights when they place them in custody. Not Officer Swenson. Officer Swenson not only placed them in custody, and secretly activated the recording machine, but failed to advise them of their right to remain silent. His search of their car under these circumstances was bound to compel a response from them which he was secretly taping. In State v. Cody, 293 N.W.2d 440, 447 (S.D.1980), we stated: The term "interrogation" under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Dreps

2. “Most officers use this device to record important information and conversations to prove proper procedures were followed such as Miranda and Implied consent warnings. Not Officer Swenson. He not only conveniently omits to turn on the machine during the time when his conduct might be in question, he secretly activates it to record the conversation in the back seat of the patrol car while he's searching Ramirez's car. He claims he did it for his safety—and not to compel or elicit an incriminating response. In my view, that's why he placed them in custody and that's why he secretly activated the recording device.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Dreps

3. “Law enforcement officers are entitled to diligently investigate to verify a vehicle’s registration. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 , 105 S.Ct. 1568, 1575 , 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985). A brief delay while running a computer check on a vehicle registration or a driver’s license via radio is permissible. State v. Hewey, 144 Vt. 10 , 471 A.2d 236 (1983); 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 10.8(a), at 64 (2d 1987).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Spenner v. CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA