Hudson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A warrant to search Hudson’s car was never obtained so the State must show the reasonableness of the search. [Citation omitted,] The State argues that Hudson abandoned his car and therefore lost his standing to complain of an illegal search and seizure. See Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 , 80 S. Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960). “The Fifth Circuit has viewed the issue of abandonment in terms of whether or not the person prejudiced by the search had voluntarily discarded, left behind, or otherwise relinquished his interest in the property so that he can no longer retain a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to it. United States v. Colbert, 474 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1973). Texas endorses the same approach in Smith v. State, 530 S.W.2d 827 (Tex. Cr. App. 1975). Abandonment is primarily a question of intent which may be inferred from the actions of the appellant. All relevant circumstances should be considered in determining whether or not the car was abandoned. [Citations omitted.] “Hudson argues that he did not intend to abandon the car but that even if abandonment is found, that it was not voluntary. At the pre-trial hearing on suppression of the evidence, Hudson testified that the police found a gun in his car; they became alarmed and an officer pulled his service revolver which scared Hudson so he ran from the roadway. He also testified that he notified the Abilene Police Department of his desire to reclaim his car. “When Hudson fled from the car, he did so withou”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 13 Kan. App. 2d 384 - State v. Brunson