State v. Gargus’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. “"`[ State v. Otwell ,] 733 So.2d [950,] 952 [(Ala.Crim.App. 1999)]. "`"`When officers lawfully arrest an automobile occupant, they may search the passenger compartment of the automobile as a contemporaneous incident of the arrest, and they also may examine the contents of containers found in the automobile.'" State v. Otwell , 733 So.2d at 954 , quoting United States v. Diaz-Lizaraza , 981 F.2d 1216 , 1222 (11th Cir. 1993). "This is so even though the appellant was already handcuffed and placed in the police officer's car when the appellant's car was searched." Mason v. State , 768 So.2d 981 , 999 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998), aff'd , 768 So.2d 1008 (Ala. 2000), citing Gundrum v. State , 563 So.2d 27 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990).' "[ Baird v. State ,] 849 So.2d [223] at 229-30 [(Ala.Crim.App. 2002)]. In Sheffield v. State , 606 So.2d 183 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992), this Court stated: "`After arresting the driver of an automobile, an officer "may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment" of that car, including "the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment." New York v. Belton , 453 U.S. 454 , 460 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 2864 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); Daniels v. State , 416 So.2d 760 , 763 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). See also, State v. Calhoun , 502 So.2d 808 (Ala. 1986).' " 606 So.2d at 187 . Additionally, in Mason v. State , 768 So.2d 981 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998), aff'd, 768 So.2d 1008 (Ala. 2000), this Court stated: "`Even if we were to conclude that ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Skaggs · 86 So. 3d 441 - Avis Dante Hinkle v. State of Alabama.

2. “"`"`"This court has long held that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, unless they fall within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. See, e.g., Chevere v. State , 607 So.2d 361 , 368 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992). These exceptions are: (1) plain view; (2) consent; (3) incident to a lawful arrest; (4) hot pursuit or emergency; (5) probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances; (6) stop and frisk situations; and (7) inventory searches. Ex parte Hilley , 484 So.2d 485 , 488 (Ala. 1985); Chevere , supra, 607 So.2d at 368 ."' "`" State v. Mitchell , 722 So.2d 814 [, 820] (Ala.Cr.App. 1998), quoting Rokitski v. State , 715 So.2d 859 [, 861] (Ala.Cr.App. 1997)."”

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

3. “the odor of burned marijuana emanating from an automobile is enough to provide probable cause to search the vehicle.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 263 So. 3d 736 - State v. Abrams