647 So. 2d 7 - Tillman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"A mere request on the part of a law enforcement officer to search a vehicle after pulling the vehicle over for a legitimate purpose does not amount to a detention of the person of whom the request is made, assuming the officer has disposed of the legitimate purpose for which the vehicle was stopped. In addition, consent to the search waives any right to privacy afforded by the Fourth Amendment. Ball v. State, 592 So.2d 1071 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). "In [ State v.] Washington, [ 623 So.2d 392 (Ala.Crim.App.1993),] this court said there is no constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion as a prerequisite for seeking consent to search. State v. Washington, 623 So.2d at 397 (quoting State v. Abreu, 257 N.J.Super. 549 , 608 A.2d 986, 989 , (1992) (citing 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.1 at 32 n. 5.1 (Supp.1992)). We do not agree with the appellant's assertion that our decision in Washington implies that a police officer needs a factual basis, in addition to the legitimate purpose for which the vehicle was stopped, to request the driver's permission to search the vehicle for drugs. Consent searches play an important role in police investigations and should not be limited or restricted to the same extent as investigatory stops and searches under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). `If consent is given, evidence may thereby be uncovered in a situation where there was no other lawful basis for making the search.' 3 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hale · State v. Ellis

2. “"`The standard for measuring the scope of a suspect's consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of objective reasonableness—what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?' Generally, a general consent to search an area . . . permits the police to open closed but unlocked containers found in the place as to which consent was given, especially if the police have told the suspect what they are searching for and that object might be concealed in the closed container."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. STE v. State · 954 So. 2d 604 - S.T.E. v. State

3. “Therefore, we hold that Tillman was not being detained after the police officer returned her identification and the signed UTTC. Tillman's consent to the officer's request to search her vehicle after she had been stopped for a legitimate purpose resulted in a legal search of the van, and officials did not have to have reasonable suspicion that Tillman was carrying drugs, weapons, or any other contraband to conduct the search.”

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