Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 762 N.E.2d 128 - Edwards v. State

Edwards v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

24 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Ross · New York v. Belton · Horton v. California · California v. Acevedo · Florida v. Wells

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

  1. ““[T]here must be a strong showing of authenticity and competency” and ... when automatic cameras are involved, “there should be evidence as to how and when the camera was loaded, how frequently the camera was activated, when the photographs were taken, and the processing and changing of custody of the film after its removal from the camera.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Searches performed in conformity with standard police procedures are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. [Vehorn v. State, 717 N.E.2d 869, 875 (Ind.1999)]. However, the State must present more than conclusory testimony of an officer that the search was conducted as a routine inventory. [Stephens v. State, 735 N.E.2d 278, 282 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied ]; Rabadi v. State, 541 N.E.2d 271, 275 (Ind.1989). “The circumstances surrounding the intrusion must also indicate that -the search was part of established and routine department procedures which are consistent with the protection of the police from potential danger and false claims of lost or stolen property and the protection of the property of those arrested.” Rabadi, 541 N.E.2d at 275 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[w]hen probable cause exists to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a crime, a warrantless search of the vehicle does not violate the Fourth Amendment because of the exigent circumstances arising out of the likely disappearance of the vehicle.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.