65 Wash. 2d 808 - State v. Darst’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If an officer believes and has good reason to believe that a person has committed, or is about to commit a felony, he may arrest without a warrant. This is but another way of saying that an officer must have probable cause to believe that a felony has been or is about to be committed and that the person arrested committed or is about to commit it. [Citing cases.] . . . Even a strong belief held in good faith if unsupported by the circumstances will be insufficient to make a search valid. [Citing case.] The probable cause essential to support an arrest without a warrant is a belief based upon facts within the knowledge of the arresting officer, persuasive enough to convince a judge that a cautious but disinterested man would also believe the arrested person guilty. [Citing cases.] If the arrest was lawful, i.e., upon probable cause, then a search of the person, the immediate area and the nearby automobile became lawful. [Citing cases.] Such a search incident to a lawful arrest is permitted to protect the arresting officer from assault by accomplices or hidden weapons and to prevent the destruction of evidence. [Citing case.] State v. Darst, 65 Wn.2d 808, 811 , 399 P.2d 618 (1965).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 12 Wash. App. 640 - State v. Cottrell · 66 Wash. 2d 654 - State v. McClung

2. “It seems to us that a forthright, clearly provable warning given to one in lawful custody informing the accused in unmistakable terms that [1] he has a right to counsel and [2] a right to remain silent, and [3] that anything said or written by him may be used against him in evidence, would do much to eliminate a sizable quantum of claimed error and keep the investigation channeled to its true purpose: ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the party accused. We see no reason for so simple a caveat not being given routinely and required as a part of modern police administration. (Italics ours.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 72 Wash. 2d 306 - State v. Aiken

3. “The court found the confession to have been voluntarily made and not given in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to counsel. Abundant evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion and demonstrates that the court acted well within its discretion in admitting the confession in evidence. State v. Hoffman, 64 Wn. (2d) 445, 392 P. (2d) 237 . The essential test is always, Was the confession voluntarily given? Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 , 6 L. Ed. (2d) 1037, 81 S. Ct. 1860 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 70 Wash. 2d 969 - State v. Alvis