Ex Parte Warren’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"After considering both lines of cases that have reviewed the difficult issue presented in this case, we conclude that the better-reasoned view is that espoused by those courts holding that if the object detected by the officer's touch during a Terry search is a hard-shell, closed container , then the incriminating nature of any contents of that container cannot be immediately apparent to the officer until he seizes it and opens it. In such a situation, the officer cannot satisfy the [Minnesota v.] Dickerson , [ 508 U.S. 366 (1993),] requirement that the officer have probable cause to believe, before seizing it, that the object is contraband. Although the plain-feel doctrine has a field of operation under [certain] circumstances . . . in which the nature of the contraband itself was immediately apparent to the officer, the plain-feel doctrine does not justify [the officer's] seizure of the Tic Tac box from [the defendant's] pocket in this case."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cannon v. State · 980 So. 2d 521 - Crawford v. State

2. “"`In the case before us, Officer Gill did not pat down the outer surface of James's pants pocket to determine if a weapon was present and did not "inadvertently discover" the marijuana cigarettes under the "plain-feel" doctrine. When Officer Gill saw James attempt to reach his hand into his pants pocket, Gill moved James's hand, reached into the pants pocket, and removed the marijuana cigarettes. Officer Gill admitted that he did not pat down the pocket before he reached inside the pocket. Also, there was no evidence that Gill feared for his safety when he saw James attempt to put his hand in his pocket. Therefore, Officer Gill violated James's right against unreasonable search and seizure when he reached into James's pocket without any legally recognized justification gained from first patting down the outer surface of the pocket to determine whether a weapon was present.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 901 So. 2d 759 - Davis v. State

3. “The assessment of probable cause turns on the weighing of probabilities in particular factual contexts, and it requires that the collected evidence `be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement.' [ Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 ,] 231 [(1983)].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Jenkins