7 Cal. 3d 899 - People v. McKinnon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 234 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 243 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Is a box or trunk consigned to a common carrier for shipment to a remote destination a ‘thing readily moved’ or a ‘fixed piece of property? The answer, self-evidently, is the former. To be sure, such a box has neither wheels nor motive power; but these features of an automobile are legally relevant only insofar as they make it movable despite its dimensions. A box, which is a fraction of the size and weight of an automobile, is movable without such appurtenances. It is also true that a box or trunk, as distinguished from an automobile, may serve the double purpose of both storing goods and packaging them for shipment. But whenever such a box is consigned to a common carrier, there can be no doubt that it is intended, in fact, to be moved. “What is true of a box or trunk is true of all goods or chattels consigned to a common carrier for shipment. As they are no less movable than an automobile, the reasons for the rule permitting a warrantless search of .a vehicle upon probable cause are equally applicable to the search of such a chattel. In the language of the United States Supreme Court decisions, ‘common sense dictates’ that when the police have probable cause to believe a chattel consigned to a common carrier contains contraband, they must be entitled either (1) to search it without a warrant or (2) to ‘seize’ and hold it until they can obtain a warrant; absent these remedies, the chattel will be shipped out of the jurisdiction or claimed by its owner or by the consignee. ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Boswell · 20 Md. App. 682 - Waugh v. State

2. “is not required to risk the injury to its reputation and business which could well ensue from public knowledge that it permits its facilities to be used by criminals for the purpose of trafficking in narcotics.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 22 Cal. 3d 187 - Tavernetti v. Superior Court · People v. Sapper

3. ““When a shipper consigns goods in a sealed package to a common carrier, such matters as rates, insurance values, and methods of handling are customarily determined by the carrier on the basis of the shipper’s representations as to the contents of the package. Contrary to early case law on the point (Hayes v. Wells, Fargo & Co. (1863) 23 Cal. 185, 189-190 ), current tariff provisions under which regulated carriers operate in California authorize the carrier to open and inspect the package if it suspects that the nature or value of the contents does not correspond to those representations. “Further, because a common carrier has a general duty of care towards all the goods it transports, it also has the right to open and inspect a package which it suspects contains a dangerous device or substance which may damage other goods in the shipment or the vehicle carrying them. (13 Am.Jur.2d, Carriers, § 238, and cases cited.) “Finally, a common carrier, no less than any other citizen, has the right, indeed the duty, not to knowingly allow ’ its property to be used for criminal' purposes. While a carrier. is bound to accept whatever freight it holds itself out as accustomed to carry (Civ.Code, § 2169), it is obviously not boiind to accept freight which it is illegal to possess or transport * * People v. Mc-Kinnon, 7 Cal.3d 899 , 103 Cal.Rptr. 897, 907 , 500 P.2d 1097, 1107 (1972).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Fassler