Miffleton v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Hernandez v. State (1998), Green v. State (1994)
42 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schmerber v. State of California · Rhode Island v. Innis · Gilbert v. California · Malloy v. Hogan
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e conclude that the videotape is not testimonial in nature and therefore does not offend the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Applying a Fifth Amendment analysis, we find no meaningful distinction between obtaining a film of a defendant performing a sobriety test and obtaining a sample of breath, blood, urine, or handwriting, or submitting a defendant to fingerprinting, photographing, or measurements.... ... Visual depictions of a suspect’s physical condition, like samples of blood, breath, or handwriting, are not testimonial in nature and do not fall within the federal or state privileges against self-incrimination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stephenson v. State“[W]hen a suspect invokes his right to counsel under Miranda, the police are not forbidden from seeking the suspect’s breath sample. Likewise, we conclude that when a suspect invokes his right to counsel under Miranda, the police are not prohibited from obtaining video recordings of the suspect performing sobriety tests. Visual de pictions of a suspect’s physical condition, like samples of blood, breath, or handwriting, are not testimonial in nature and do not fall within the federal or state privileges against s elf-incrimination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fierro v. State
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.