83 Ohio App. 3d 829 - State v. Rodriguez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We thus turn to whether Rodriguez consented to the removal of the interior panel that revealed the presence of the several packages of cocaine. In Florida v. Jimeno (1991), 500 U.S. [248], 111 S.Ct. 1801 , 114 L.Ed.2d 297 , the Supreme Court had occasion to discuss the standard for measuring the scope of a suspect’s consent to the search of his car: ‘The standard for measuring the scope of a suspect’s consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of “objective” reasonableness — what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?’ a * * * “In this case, Lt. Steinke testified that he thought that the permission he had received from Rodriguez to ‘look * * * in his car’ extended to the removal of the interior panel. The trial court appears to have agreed with Lt. Steinke, noting that Rodriguez ‘did not limit the scope of his consent to search the motor vehicle.’ “In our judgment, it was not objectively reasonable for Lt. Steinke to construe Rodriguez’s response that he ‘did not mind if I looked in his car’ as a consent to Lt. Steinke’s removing the interior panel to locate contraband.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ferrell · 118 Ohio App. 3d 516 - State v. Mack