69 Or. App. 418 - State v. Kirsch’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2008
16 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.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Under Article I, section 9, a warrantless search is permissible as incident to an arrest when it is for the protection of the officer, the preservation of evidence, or `when it is relevant to the crime for which defendant is being arrested and so long as it is reasonable in light of all the facts.' State v. Caraher, 293 Or. 741, 759 , 653 P.2d 942 (1982) (emphasis supplied); see also State v. O'Neal, 251 Or. 163 , 444 P.2d 951 (1968); State v. Krogness, 238 Or. 135 , 388 P.2d 120 (1963); State v. Chinn, 231 Or. 259 , 373 P.2d 392 (1962). "A search incident to arrest must be reasonable in scope, time and intensity. State v. Caraher, [supra ], 293 Or. at 758 [ 653 P.2d 942 ]; State v. Chinn, supra . It may not be an exploratory search but must be closely tied to the crime or crimes for which the police have a right to arrest the person searched. A different rule `would open the door to complete temporary confiscation of all an arrested person's property which was in his immediate possession and control at the time of his arrest for the purpose of minute examination of it in an effort to connect him with another crime.' State v. Elkins, 245 Or. 279, 287 , 422 P.2d 250 (1966). Because a search incident to an arrest is a warrantless search, the opportunity to obtain a warrant is an important limitation on the right to continue the search. `[W]hen a search reaches a logical stopping point the police must seek a warrant before proceeding further.' State v. Flores, 68 Or.App. 617, 6”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Under Article I, section 9, a warrantless search is permissible as incident to an arrest when it is for the protection of the officer, the preservation of evidence, or `when it is relevant to the crime for which defendant is being arrested and so long as it is reasonable in light of all the facts.' State v. Caraher, 293 Or. 741, 759 , 653 P.2d 942 (1982) (emphasis supplied); see also State v. O'Neal, 251 Or. 163 , 444 P.2d 951 (1968); State v. Krogness, 238 Or. 135 , 388 P.2d 120 (1963); State v. Chinn, 231 Or. 259 , 373 P.2d 392 (1962).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“when a search reaches a logical stopping point the police must seek a warrant before proceeding further.”
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.