Osban v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 44 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A lawful search of fixed premises generally extends to the entire area in which the object of the search may be found and is not limited by the possibility that separate acts of entry or opening may be required to complete the search.... A warrant to search a vehicle would support a search of every part of the vehicle that might contain the object of the search. When a legitimate search is under way, and when its purpose and limits have been precisely defined, nice distinctions between ... glove compartments, upholstered seats, trunks, and wrapped packages, in the ease of a vehicle, must give way to the interest in the prompt and efficient completion of the task at hand. * * * He * * The scope of a warrantless search of an automobile thus is not defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted. Rather, it is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. ****** If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.”

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

2. “[ E]ven though there is a distinction between users and dealers and the latter are more likely to have additional contraband hidden in the trunk, this does not mean that users, whether occasional, regular, or habitual, are not likely to hide additional contraband in the trunk. Under the logic of Wimberly , an officer who discovers a driver and passenger each in possession of a prohibited weapon, cannot search the trunk of their vehicle because no evidence exists that the suspects deal in illegal weapons.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 174 Md. App. 434 - Wilson v. State

3. “If probable cause to search part of a vehicle is not inevitably probable cause to search the entire vehicle[,] this is because there is not enough evidence to warrant a man of reasonable caution in suspecting that contraband or evidence of a crime can be found throughout the entire vehicle.”

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