State v. Ikaika’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “first demonstrate[s] the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ketchum · State v. Balai, Sr.

2. “focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Joseph · State v. Ketchum

3. “Lieutenant Bartolomé was unaware of the circumstances of the Defendant’s detention and did not initiate any questioning until Defendant approached him. His resulting remarks were intended merely as a greeting. Bartolomé asked no further questions and made no other remarks. Moreover, the Defendant had had previous encounters with law enforcement. He had been arrested, booked and processed for prior offenses and had been advised of his constitutional rights at least twice before. The Defendant had been jailed on an unrelated misdemeanor in April 1981. At that time, he was advised of his Miranda rights by his attorney who specifically informed him that “loose lips sink ships” referring to the inadvisability of speaking to police without an attorney present. Under these facts, we are unable to conclude that Lieutenant Bartolomé could have or should have reasonably foreseen that his words or actions would elicit an incriminating response from the Defendant. At most, Bartolomé could have expected that the Defendant respond to his pleasantry by informing him of the reasons for the Defendant’s being booked and the case he was involved in. The Defendant’s confession was of the nature of an unsolicited, spontaneous statement made in the absence of any police questioning. Neither are we persuaded that the combined conduct of the police officers reveals a pattern of coercion sufficient to constitute interrogation. Accordingly, the Defendant’s constitutional rights under both the United S”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Kazanas