State v. Austin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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. “Appellant does not challenge the legality of his arrest but maintains that because he was handcuffed, he had no "control" over the area; therefore, the search cannot be justified under the Chimel standard. . . . * * * * * * The effect of putting handcuffs on the person under arrest has not been held to negate the existing circumstances surrounding a search but is considered to be only one factor in determining the necessity for the search. Several jurisdictions have addressed this specific issue. In State v. Cox [ 294 Minn. 252 , 200 N.W.2d 305 (1972)] a search was made after handcuffing the defendant. The Minnesota Court held as follows: . . . that the search was valid to the extent that the officers stayed within the bedroom, the area within the defendant's immediate control. The fact that defendant may have been handcuffed at the time the police searched that limited area is not alone a sufficient factor to distinguish this case from other cases in which we have approved the search involved as being limited to the area within the arrestee's immediate control. . . . In People v. Floyd the New York Court said [ 26 N.Y.2d 558 ] at page 563, 312 N.Y.S.2d [193] at page 196, 260 N.E.2d [815] at page 817: . . . It suffices that it is not at all clear that the `grabbing distance' authorization in the Chimel case is conditioned upon the arrested person's continued capacity `to grab.' It thus appears that the defendant in custody need not be physically able to move about in order to”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cherry · 2007 UT App 170 - State v. Marquez

2. “Such searches may be conducted without a warrant, and they may also be made whether or not there is probable cause to believe that the person arrested may have a weapon or is about to destroy evidence. The potential dangers lurking in all custodial arrests make warrantless searches of items within the "immediate control" area reasonable without requiring the arresting officer to calculate the probability that weapons or destructible evidence may be involved. . . .”

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

3. “Appellant does not challenge the legality of his arrest but maintains that because he was handcuffed, he had no “control” over the area; therefore, the search cannot be justified under the Chimel standard. . . . It thus appears that the defendant in custody need not be physically able to move about in order to justify a search within a limited area once an arrest has been made.”

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