83 Okla. Crim. 340 - Edwards v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 23 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The right of search and seizure is in derogation of the guaranties of the Constitution of the United States, the State of Oklahoma, and against the invasion of the privacy of the people. This guaranty has long been extended to include automobiles. Suffice, it to say, that these guaranties were born of the pre-revolution days, when the homes of the people were invaded by the British Red Coats and searched with or without the slightest reason, provocation, or authority of law. It was from such experiences that the constitutional barriers against its wrongful use have been erected. But the necessities of the law and its effective enforcement required that officers of the law be extended the right to search and seize. This right, in proper cases and when properly authorized and executed, was found to be an essential adjunct to proper protection to the public against law violators. It was recognized as an essential instrument in the detection and suppression of crime, and in the disclosure and seizure of contraband and the instruments of crime. "The people recognized that in granting the right to search and seize, they were doing so in derogation of one of their most sacred rights. To prevent abuses, its use was permitted under strict prescriptions of law. The barriers, which the people erected to prevent its misuse, are, the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, * * *" and, "Article 2, section 30, of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, * *”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 86 Okla. Crim. 9 - Graham v. State · State v. Edwards

2. ““It is fundamental that a waiver must be proved by the party alleging it, 63 C. J. 309. This proof must be clear and convincing, that the waiver was a free and voluntary act, as was said by Judge Barefoot in Pritchett v. State, 78 Okla. Cr. 67 , 143 P. 2d 622, 623 , and by Judge Jones in Dawson v. State, 83 Okla. Cr. 263 , 175 P. 2d 368 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 94 Okla. Crim. 375 - Hogan v. State

3. ““Certainly, an officer has a right to search an . automobile when he sees whiskey through the window * * * * * * The discovery * * * was made, independent of a search, and not incident to a search without a warrant.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. ONE 1948 FORD TUDOR AUTOMOBILE v. State Ex Rel. Field