817 So. 2d 11 - State v. Benoit’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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. “• Article 9: “When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature.” • Article 10: “When the language of the law is susceptible of different meanings, it must be interpreted as having the meaning that best conforms to the purpose of the law.” • Article 11: “The words of a law must be given their generally prevailing meaning. Words of art and technical terms must be given their technical meaning when the law involves a technical matter.” • Article 12: “When the words of a law are ambiguous, their meaning must be sought by examining the context in which they occur and the text of the law as a whole.” • Article 13: “Laws on the same subject matter must be interpreted in reference to each other.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 35 So. 3d 1088 - State Ex Rel. Tc · 60 So. 3d 1264 - State v. M.C.

2. “|10To examine; scrutinize; investigate; look into; check over; or view for the purpose of ascertaining the quality, authenticity or conditions of an item, product, document, residence, business, etc. Word has broader meaning than just looking, and means to examine carefully or critically, investigate and test officially, especially a critical investigation or scrutiny. [[Image here]] [Considering [the officer’s] experience in law enforcement and track record for identifying and making DWI arrests, which is not contested, the facts herein present a valid reason for [the officer] to become suspicious and pursue an investigation of defendant’s intoxicated state. [The officer] saw the defendant struggle for balance as he exited his vehicle, and he slurred his speech, and smelled of alcohol. At this point, [the officer] had no need to investigate the seat belt violation further; rather, he had independent, reasonable suspicion that the defendant was intoxicated and thus was authorized to conduct field sobriety tests, breather analyzer tests, and similar indices of intoxication upon the defendant. The violation of La.Rev.Stat. 32:295.1 was therefore not the ‘sole’ reason for [the officer’s] administration of field sobriety tests and his request that the defendant submit to a breath analyzer test. Accordingly, [the officer’s] behavior did not conflict with the statute at issue.”

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

3. “[W]e must determine whether [the officer’s] actions subsequent to the stop were unlawful. Pertinent to this determination is whether [the officer’s] actions of ordering the defendant out of the car, then observing the defendant’s gait, his speech, and detecting the scent of his exhalations, constitutes a search or inspection. Under current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, [the officer’s] conduct clearly does not constitute a search. (‘The term [search] implies some exploratory investigation, or an invasion and quest, a looking for or seeking out.’) Accordingly, the propriety under Rev. Stat. 32:295.1 of [the officer’s] order and subsequent observation of the defendant hinges upon the question of whether such behavior constitutes an inspection, and thus depends upon the ‘generally prevailing meaning1 of inspection.”

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