Faust v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the testimony of the experienced law enforcement officers constituted more than ‘bald allegations’ that they conducted a routine inventory search; rather, their testimony described the purpose of the inventory, outlined the procedures used to conduct this particular inventory, and established that IMPD policy authorizes on-site inventory searches. Even absent introduction of the formal IMPD policy on inventory searches, we think this testimony was sufficient to show that the search was part of established and routine procedures that are consistent with the community caretak-ing function.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chauncy Rhodes v. State of Indiana

2. “(a) ... [A] law enforcement officer authorized to enforce motor vehicle laws who discovers a vehicle required to be registered under this article that does not have the proper certificate óf registration or license plate: (1) shall take the vehicle into the officer’s custody; and (2) may cause the vehicle to be taken-to and stored in a suitable place until: (A) the legal owner of the vehicle can be found; or ' (B) the proper certificate of registration and license plates have been procured.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Phillip Whitley v. State of Indiana

3. “We review the denial of a motion to suppress evidence in a manner similar to allegations of insufficient evidence. We do not reweigh the evidence, and we consider conflicting evidence most favorable to the trial court's ruling. However, unlike the typical sufficiency of the evidence case where only the evidence favorable to the judgment is considered, in reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, we must also consider the uncontested evidence most favorable to the defendant.”

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