McDermott v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When an officer lawfully occupies that vantage point from which he can observe possible evidence in plain view, there is no search, reasonable or unreasonable, proscribed by these constitutional inhibitions. In such an instance, the constitutional protections are not infringed because there is no expectation of privacy with respect to those things left where they can be seen by anyone, or everyone. In Horton [v. California ], 496 U.S. 128, at 133-34 , 110 S.Ct. [2301] at 2306 [ 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)], the Supreme Court of the United States articulated the basic rationale: The right to security in person and property protected by the Fourth Amendment may be invaded in quite different ways by searches and seizures. A search compromises the individual interest in privacy; a seizure deprives the individual of dominion over his or her person or property. The “plain-view” doctrine is often considered an exception to the general rule that warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable, but this characterization overlooks the important difference between searches and seizures. If an article is already in plain view, neither its observation nor its seizure would involve any invasion of privacy. A seizure of the article, however, would obviously invade the owner’s possessory interest. If “plain view” justifies an exception from an otherwise applicable warrant requirement, therefore, it must be an exception that is addressed to the concerns that are implicated by seizures rather t”

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

2. “When an officer lawfully occupies the vantage point from which he can observe possible evidence in plain view, there is no search, reasonable or unreasonable, proscribed by these constitutional [prohibitions] .... When an officer’s observation of items of evidence is made within the rationale relating to plain view, he may proceed to seize the evidence if there are exigent circumstances justifying the seizure.”

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

3. “Since McDermott had actual knowledge of the identity of the victim, there could be no prejudice to him because of the failure of the information to incorporate the victim’s name. Consequently, we hold no error can be claimed under Walker .”

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