688 F. Supp. 149 - Poole v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Pear of retaliation and the chilling effect which that may have upon prisoners and other corrections officers revealing an officer’s drug abuse are very real concerns aggravated by the confined setting of a prison. The fourth amendment principles do not require disclosure of the grounds and sources of information to one about to be subjected to an otherwise reasonable search and seizure ... The codified procedures, which require a high-level decision based upon a contemporaneous memorandum which freezes the bases for the alleged suspicion, provide protection to the corrections officers. Although source disclosure is not required at the Loudermill hearing, it will inevitably be required if an officer invokes his right to further, formal hearings and judicial review. These post-termination hearings satisfy due process requirements. [ 688 F.Supp. at 157-158 (footnote omitted) ]. 2”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Caldwell v. New Jersey Department of Corrections

2. “In those instances when an officer ... refuses to provide a urine sample or refuses to remain within a specified area until able to urinate, the officer ... will be subject to disciplinary charges and dismissed from employment if, after a fair and impartial hearing, it is determined that the officer ... was properly ordered to undergo testing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Caldwell v. New Jersey Department of Corrections