59 Okla. Crim. 360 - Lamb v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The search of the car without a warrant of arrest or search warrant, or knowledge by the officer that it contained whisky, held illegal, and evidence should be excluded upon timely objection.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 74 Okla. Crim. 322 - Patty v. State · 92 Okla. Crim. 63 - Johnson v. State

2. ““There is no contention by the witness Wheeler, who was a highway patrolman, that he could see the defendant had whisky in his car at the time he stopped him upon the public highway without a warrant for his arrest or to search his car. The patrolman’s effort to justify his unlawful act that the defendant was driving recklessly or intoxicated is not sustained by his own testimony, but there is no contention that the defendant was intoxicated or drunk at the time he stopped him. An officer seeking the enforcement of one law should not violate another in order to accomplish his purpose. Such conduct brings the administration of justice into disrepute and shows a subversion of peace and good order. When the officer stopped the defendant on the highway and searched his car, he did so without any legal authority and the search and seizure was an unlawful violation of the defendant’s rights as guaranteed him by the laws and the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, art. 2, § 30. “Where an officer does not know of the act constituting the offense, it is not committed in his presence. The defendant may be guilty, but he is entitled to a fair and impartial trial and to have all incompetent testimony excluded.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 92 Okla. Crim. 63 - Johnson v. State · 63 Okla. Crim. 428 - Ketcham v. State

3. ““No search of the person or seizure of any article found thereon can be made on mere suspicion that the person is violating the prohibitory liquor laws in having intoxicating liquor in his possession, or without a search warrant, unless and until the alleged offender is in custody under a warrant of arrest, or shall be lawfully arrested without a warrant as authorized by law.” Strong et al. v. State, 42 Okla. Cr. 114 , 274 Pac. 890 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 63 Okla. Crim. 428 - Ketcham v. State