555 So. 2d 1145 - McDaniel v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In this case, the officer `patted down' the appellant because he had a reasonable suspicion that the appellant was armed, but upon the informant's statement. See, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). However, as stated above, this type of search must be very limited in scope. It is abundantly clear in this case that this was not a Terry stop and patdown. In this case, the police officer testified that he had searched the appellant for marijuana. Deputy Watson further testified that he knew when he touched the pill bottle that it was not a weapon. Deputy Watson was not justified, under Terry , in performing such an intrusive search. The officer's concern was to discover marijuana. Seizure of the pill bottle was not lawful. There were no exigent circumstances excusing obtaining a warrant. The officer did not seize the bottle in an attempt to protect himself. As a result of the unlawful seizure, evidence of the pills was received into evidence in violation of the United States Constitution."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 667 So. 2d 145 - Hodges v. State