Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) A law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that a person has committed an offense under this chapter, IC 9-30-5 [operating a vehicle while intoxicated], or IC 9-30-9, or a violation under IC 9-80-15 shall offer the person the opportunity to submit to a chemical test. (b) A law enforcement officer: (1) is not required to offer a chemical test to an unconscious person; and (2) may offer a person more than one (1) chemical test under this chapter. (c) A test administered under this chapter must be administered within three (3) hours after the law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe the person committed an offense under IC 9-30-5 or a violation under IC 9-80-15. (d) A person must submit to each chemical test offered by a law enforcement officer in order to comply with the implied consent provisions of this chapter.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Datzek v. State · Abney v. State

2. “IC § 9-30-7-2 merely requires a driver involved in a fatal accident or one involving serious bodily injury to submit to a test offered by a police officer pursuant to IC § 9-30-7-3 in order to comply with the implied consent law in Indiana and to avoid the mandatory sanctions set forth in IC § 9-30-7-5. ... It does mot require a driver to submit to a chemical test.... Although he would have been sanctioned for refusing the offered test of his blood, Griswold retained the option to refuse to submit to the chemical test. Because chapter seven does not require a search or seizure, it does not violate the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and is therefore not unconstitutional.”

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

3. “(a) A law enforcement officer shall offer a portable breath test or chemical test to any person who the officer has reason to believe operated a vehicle that was involved in a fatal accident or an accident involving serious bodily injury. If: (.1) the results of a portable breath test indicate the presence of alcohol; (2) the results of a portable breath test do not indicate the presence of alcohol but the law enforcement affi- cer has probable cause to believe the person is under the influence of a controlled substance or another drug; or (3) the .person refuses to submit to a portable breath test; the law enforcement officer shall offer a chemical test to the person.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Morgan Mannix v. State of Indiana