662 So. 2d 920 - Webster v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably 778 So. 2d 199 - Hyde v. State (1998), 728 So. 2d 691 - Farrior v. State (1998)
3 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Rideout v. United States · Colorado v. Bertine · Martinez-Villareal v. Arizona · United States v. Causey · United States v. Staller
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`In Scarbrough [v. State , 621 So.2d 996 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992)], we adopted the "objective" test set forth by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with regard to determining the validity of an alleged pretextual arrest: "`"`Again and again in precisely the present context, the [Supreme] Court has told us that where police officers are objectively doing what they are legally authorized to do — as in arresting [the defendant] pursuant to the valid warrant outstanding against him and interrogating him without coercion after reading him repeated Miranda warnings — the results of their investigations are not to be called in question on the basis of any subjective intent with which they acted . . . . "`"`. . . The relevant principle of the Supreme Court is likewise: so long as police do no more than they are objectively authorized and legally permitted to do, their motives in doing so are irrelevant and hence not subject to inquiry. . . . The correct rule is that, while a showing of objectively reasonable good faith on the part of the police officers will ordinarily redeem honest errors and prevent the application of the exclusionary rule, in a case where the officers have taken no action except what the law objectively allows[,] their subjective motives in doing so are not even relevant to the suppression inquiry. And the reason lies in the purpose of that rule: to deter unlawful actions by police. Where nothing has been done that is objectively unlawful, the exclusionary rule has no ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"`United States v. Causey , 834 F.2d 1179 , 1184-85 (5th Cir. 1987) (emphasis in original) (footnotes omitted)." Scarbrough , 621 So.2d at 1004 ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`In Scarbrough [v. State , 621 So.2d 996 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992)], we adopted the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.