75 Or. App. 106 - State v. Herbert’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. “"1. The officer had the normal training received by police officers for the detection of and identification of controlled substances. "2. The paper fold was distinguishable from ordinary paper only by its folded shape, not by the kind of quality of paper that it was. "3. The paper was opaque. "4. The defendant was neither a known user or trafficker in the illicit business of controlled substances. "5. Defendant was being arrested on a nonrelated, i.e. not related to the drug charge, traffic matter. "6. The defendant removed the paper fold from his bib overalls front pocket in the presence of the officer and in a manner that seemed to be furtive to the officer. "7. The officer was suspicious that the paper fold contained cocaine." The trial court concluded: "* * * In this case, before me, there is no bottle through which the contents can be seen, nor is there any suspicion of the presence of a controlled substance. "It was possible that the paper fold might contain cocaine. The officer had seen it before in a paper fold and had been taught to suspect that cocaine was transported in that manner. A possibility is not enough. * * * The paper fold could have just as possibly held small, unsnelled fishhooks, pieces of a calculator which had been disassembled and were being taken to a repairman, a broken necklace or a chain that girls wear that was being taken to the jeweler, or a number of other things, such as radish seeds. "In State v. Alpert, [ 52 Or. App. 815 , 629 P.2d 878 (19”

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