Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 73 Cal. App. 4th 288 - People v. Summers

73 Cal. App. 4th 288 - People v. Summers’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
October 2009
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Chimel v. California · New York v. Belton · Dunaway v. New York · United States v. Robinson

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

  1. “[f]ollowing the lead of the Supreme Court, the federal circuits have recognized the folly of promulgating a rule designed to enable the police to protect themselves and interpreting it to require them to put themselves at risk in order to take advantage of it. Phrased less circuitously, it makes no sense to condition a search incident to arrest upon the willingness of police to remain in harms way while conducting it. [] Therefore the courts have refined a rule which protects the individual from unreasonable search and the officer from unreasonable danger. They have provided that the grabbing area described by Chimel applies to the area immediately accessible to the suspect at the time of his arrest, and that a search of the area may be made subsequent to the arrest, so long as it is reasonably contemporaneous and nothing has occurred in the meantime to render it unreasonable. This removes police from the horns of a dilemma which would require them either to forego search incident to arrest, or to keep the suspect at least figuratively within arms reach while conducting such a search, thereby assuring the very danger it was meant to prevent.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “one roommate was present and free of police control”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “With these principles in mind we consider ... evidence Hudson sought to suppress below. [¶] We begin by noting that little time passed between the moment Hudson was arrested and the time the officer returned to his bedroom to conduct the search.... The record indicates that a mere three minutes elapsed between Hudson's arrest and the search of the rifle case. [Citations.] [¶] We next consider the physical circumstances of the search.... Although the rifle was contained in a case, it was nevertheless well within Hudson's reach, and thus constituted a potential danger to the arresting officers. The physical proximity of the rifle thus supports a conclusion that the search fell squarely within the spatial limitations of a search incident to arrest.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.