Membres v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 22 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The statute authorizing the turnover of seized property provides: Upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, the court shall order property seized under IC 34-24-1 transferred, subject to the perfected liens or other security interests of any person in the property, to the appropriate federal authority for disposition under 18 U.S.C. 981(e), 19 U.S.C. 16162, or 21 U.S.C. 881(e) and any related regulations adopted by the United States Department of Justice. Ind.Code § 85-33-5-5(Jj) (2004). The State argues that the language of the turnover statute is mandatory in that "the court shall" order the transfer of property to federal authorities [The appellant] responds that the statute by its terms applies only if the property has been "seized under Indiana code chapter 34-24-1." Indiana Code section 34-24-1-2(a) provides: Property may be seized under this chapter by a law enforcement officer only if: (1) the seizure is incident to a lawful: (A) arrest; (B) search; or (C) administrative inspection[.] We agree with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that if the search or seizure of [the appellant's] property was unlawful, the turnover order must be reversed. The statute contemplates a lawful search, and the purpose of the exclusionary rule would be thwarted if law enforcement could conduct unlawful intrusions into citizens' privacy and still use the evidence by turning it over to another jurisdiction.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Adams v. State · Robert Bowman, Tommy Maurry, and Jacob Murphy v. State of Indiana

2. “challenges to pre- Litchfield searches that did not raise Litchfield -like claims in the trial court before Litchfield was decided are governed by pre- Litchfield doctrine.”

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

3. “order the transfer of property to federal authorities [The appellant] responds that the statute by its terms applies only if the property has been”

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