68 Or. App. 617 - State v. Flores’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2010
17 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 Katz v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Chimel v. California · Weeks v. United States · Ker v. State of California
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he seizure of the bottle incident to a valid arrest and the subsequent testing of its contents are properly analyzed not as one but as two events. For `probable cause' is not alone dispositive of those steps. The question is not simply whether probable cause to investigate, that is to say, to `search,' the contents of the bottle did or did not exist, but whether there was any need to do so without a warrant. "The constitutional text itself ties the phrase `probable cause' to warrants. It seems never to become superfluous to repeat that the requirement of a judicial warrant for a search or seizure is the rule and that authority to act on an officer's own assessment of probable cause without a warrant is justified only by one or another exception. [Citations omitted.] The time to make the judicial determination whether there is probable cause for a search or a seizure, if time permits, is before the individual's privacy is invaded. A later adjudication upon a motion to suppress evidence, although necessary, does not undo the invasion, does not help persons who are cleared and never prosecuted, and colors the perception of `probable cause' by what the search in fact revealed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“to the warrant requirement and was, therefore, illegal. We agree with the state that the search was proper incident to defendant's arrest. The scope of a search of an automobile conducted incident to an arrest is subject to the same criteria as any search incident to an arrest. If the search is for evidence related to the crime for which the defendant was arrested, it must be reasonable in time, scope, and intensity. Each case depends on its own facts. There is no”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he seizure of the bottle incident to a valid arrest and the subsequent testing of its contents are properly analyzed not as one but as two events. For `probable cause' is not alone dispositive of those steps. The question is not simply whether probable cause to investigate, that is to say, to `search,' the contents of the bottle did or did not exist, but whether there was any need to do so without a warrant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.