People v. Sutherland’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State v. Cocio (1985), State v. Crutcher (1999)
27 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Schmerber v. State of California · Rawlings v. Kentucky · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Cupp v. Murphy · 6 Cal. 3d 757 - People v. Superior Court
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, there must be probable cause for the arrest of the defendant on an alcohol-related driving offense. Second, there must be a clear indication that the blood sample will provide evidence of the defendant’s level of intoxication. Third, exigent circumstances must exist which make it impractical to obtain a search warrant. Fourth, the test must be a reasonable one and must be conducted in a reasonable manner.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“Drawing blood from an unconscious party is a search that is 'subject to the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.' In the motor vehicle context, the police infringe upon these protections if they draw blood from a non-consenting driver absent probable cause that he committed an alcohol-related driving offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Schaufele“We hold that in the absence of any evidence of tampering or lack of authentication, the proponent of evidence relating to the results of a blood-alcohol test and the supporting exhibits is not required to call each witness who may have handled the exhibit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Reil
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.