874 So. 2d 666 - Perko v. State’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. “[i]t is nothing more than fiction to say that all of these subjects have consented to the confrontation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 894 So. 2d 115 - State v. Baez · 945 So. 2d 1174 - Golphin v. State

2. “Without his identification, Daniel was effectively immobilized. Abandoning one's identification is simply not a practical or realistic option for a reasonable person in modern society. [ Florida v. ] Royer, 460 U.S. [491] at 501-02, 103 S.Ct. [1319] at 1326 [ 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983)]; United States v. Jordan, 294 U.S.App. D.C. 227, 958 F.2d 1085, 1087 (D.C.Cir.1992). Contary to the State's assertion, when an officer retains a person's identification for the purpose of running a computer check for outstanding warrants, no reasonable person would believe that he or she could simply terminate the encounter by asking the officer to return the identification.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 894 So. 2d 115 - State v. Baez

3. “In the course of a consensual encounter, a sheriff's deputy obtained Perko's consent to conduct a search of his person after obtaining, but before returning, his driver's license while another deputy conducted a warrant check. Under these circumstances, consent was obtained after Perko had been effectively seized. Therefore, the search was unlawful and the fruits thereof must be suppressed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 948 So. 2d 725 - State v. Campbell