People v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 82 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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he only subjective difference between temporary and permanent checkpoints is that because its location is known in advance the latter can be avoided entirely by using a different route, but that difference is minimal as concerns anxiety, especially since a temporary checkpoint can also be avoided. Of greater importance on the other side of the equation is the fact that both the detection and deterrence purposes would be adversely affected, if not forestalled entirely, were drunk driving checkpoints required to remain in one place, the known and permanent location of the checkpoint making it easily avoidable. [ Id. 483 N.Y.S. 2d 649 , 473 N.E. 2d at 5 ].”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Tarbert · 43 Cal. 3d 1321 - Ingersoll v. Palmer

2. “"The importance of the governmental interest here involved is beyond question. `The carnage caused by drunk drivers is well documented and needs no detailed recitation here' ( South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 558 [ 103 S.Ct. 916, 920 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 ]; see, also, Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 17-18, n. 9 [ 99 S.Ct. 2612 , 2621 n. 9, 61 L.Ed.2d 321 ]; Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving, An Interim Report to the Nation [1982]; Report of Governor's Alcohol and Highway Safety Task Force [1981]; Drunk Driving Reform in New York State, 1980-84, Report of the Subcommittee on Drunk Driving of the Assembly Transportation Committee; L 1981, ch 910, § 1 [`Because of the persistence of the problem, it is essential that the state take further steps to protect those who make use of roads from the needless deaths, injuries and property damage resulting from drunk driving']; Ifft, Curbing the Drunk Driver Under the Fourth Amendment: Constitutionality of Roadblock Seizures, 71 Georgetown LJ 1457, n 1)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Martin · Nelson v. Lane County

3. “The fact that the plan contemplated situations in which not every car would be stopped did not affect its validity in view of the specific nondiscriminatory pattern of selection it called for [citations omitted] and of the reasonableness of allowing some cars to pass when traffic became congested [citations omitted].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Crom