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

1. “Cummo v. State, 581 So.2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), upon which defendant relies, is distinguishable. In Cummo , the officer merely suspected that the defendant was attempting to hide rock cocaine in his mouth before the officer forced him to spit it out. Id. at 968 . The officer admitted that the object also could have been a lifesaver or a mint. Id. In the instant case, however, the officer had already seen what the officer identified as cocaine in defendant's mouth before the officer forced her to spit it out. The officer testified that defendant had voluntarily consented to opening her mouth at his request, at which point he saw the cocaine. Contrary to defendant's position, the trial court was entitled to believe the officer's testimony. Thus, it cannot be said that the officer in this case had a mere bare suspicion. He had probable cause as an eyewitness to prima facie evidence of the crime—possession of cocaine.”

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