Ingram v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There must be probable cause to believe that evidence is present, and the officers must reasonably conclude, from the surrounding circumstances and the information at hand, that the evidence will be destroyed or removed before a search warrant can be obtained.... Circumstances which are relevant to the determination include: the degree of urgency involved; the amount of time necessary to secure a warrant; the possibility of danger to police officers guarding the site while a warrant is sought; information indicating that the possessors of the evidence are aware the police are on their trail; and the ready destructibility of the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moore v. State

2. “[The officer's conclusion that Lebaron had the authority to consent to a search of Fitts's bedroom and saxophone case is unreasonable.... Consequently, it was unreasonable to search the room, and certainly the saxophone case, without inquiring of Fitts and Gonzalez-Lebaron as to who had authority over the room and case.... Lebaron's comments regarding occasionally searching the bedroom do not provide the basis for a reasonable conclusion that she had authority to consent to a search of the room and the saxophone case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fitts v. State

3. “balancing the nature of the exigency against the degree of intrusiveness of the warrantless search or seizure.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beltz v. State