State v. Melbert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In this case, even as a guest MELBERT reasonably had a high expectation of privacy in his personal effects in that room. While MELBERT did not have exclusive control over access to the room in which he was living, we find that he had every right to expect privacy over his personal effects in that room even from the owners of the home, and particularly, against intruding law enforcement officers. Under the facts of this case, we hold that a guest in the home of another who has the use of a room, albeit with limited privacy, can expect that his personal belongings in luggage, a purse, or even a boot bag, and other similar items will not be searched or rummaged through without his permission.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 828 So. 2d 1185 - State v. Singleton · 802 So. 2d 914 - State v. Gomez

2. ““Any evidence produced as a result of an illegal search and seizure is tainted and thus inadmissible under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” State v. Shivers, 346 So.2d 657, 661 (La.1977) (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Silverthorne v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920)). While evidence seized as a result of an illegal search is inadmissible, there are three exceptions to that exclusionary rule, the independent source doctrine, the inevitable discovery doctrine, and the attenuation doctrine. United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980). The inevitable discovery doctrine may be applicable, and therefore, we provide this analysis. In Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984), the United States Supreme Court held that unconstitutionally obtained evidence may be admitted at trial if it would inevitably have been seized by police in a constitutional manner. The court’s decision was based on its belief that it is unfair to penalize the government through application of the exclusionary rule where the police would have obtained the evidence even if no misconduct occurred.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 779 So. 2d 1055 - State v. Brooks