State v. Whelan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We must begin by considering the rules applicable to an ordinary roadside traffic stop. In such a stop, “persons temporarily detained ... are not ‘in custody’ for purposes of Miranda.” Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984), see Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9, 11 , 109 S.Ct. 205 , 102 L.Ed.2d 172 (1988); State v. Marshall, 695 So.2d 719, 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), opinion adopted, 695 So.2d 686, 687 (Fla.1997). Miranda warnings need not be administered, and statements made in response to the police officer’s questions at roadside are admissible. See Berkemer, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 .”

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

2. “Miranda warnings are not required for roadside tests of a driver’s physical coordination. That is so because a test of physical coordination generates a non-testimonial response and is not protected by the Fifth Amendment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Karamychev v. District of Columbia