Moberg v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 21 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]n inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cornelius Jackson v. State · Marcopoulos v. State

2. “In support of [its determination that the consent of the motel manager was sufficient to justify the search of Moberg’s motel room the panel] relied upon Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 , 80 S.Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960); United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31 (2nd Cir.1987); United States v. Ramirez, 810 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 844 , 108 S.Ct. 136 , 98 L.Ed.2d 93 (1987); United States v. Rambo, 789 F.2d 1289 (8th Cir.1986); Voelkel v. State, 717 S.W.2d 314 (Tex.Cr. App.1986). It can certainly be gleaned from this compilation of authority the well settled rule that a guest in a hotel or motel loses his reasonable expectation of privacy and consequently any standing to object to any search of the premises once the rented or occupancy period has terminated. In each and every case cited for one reason or another the room was either vacated or the rental period of the room had expired. The occupant had relinquished control of the motel or hotel room and the operator of the motel/hotel was clearly authorized under the particular circumstance to consent to the search of the vacated room. Had the police waited to obtain consent from Tellefeson, the motel manager, after expiration of Moberg’s occupancy is a question not before this Court. The fact is that the officers made a conscious choice not to wait and search the room knowing that appellant was still a guest at the motel in spite of his arrest. Like in Stoner, supra, the appellant did not consent to the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Sherry

3. “(1) the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody, (2) the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, and (3) the protection of the police from inherent danger.”

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