9 Or. App. 613 - State v. Keller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““After reconsideration in the light of the California and Arizona decisions, we continue to agree with the reasoning of the Montague case. [State v. Montague, 73 Wash.2d 381 , 438 P.2d 571 (1968).] In this type of case, the defendant’s actions which bring on his arrest are the moving force which causes the inadvertent discovery of the contraband. Where the vehicle is to be placed in the possession of tow truckers and possibly others whom the police cannot constantly watch, it is unreasonable to hold that the rights of the defendant against invasion of privacy rise higher than those of the police to protect themselves from possible personal liability because they perform their duty. Generally, under such circumstances, an inventory search is reasonable. The circumstances of a particular' case may be such that an exception should be made to the general rule. “[2-4] In this connection, we call attention to the condition of our former decision; that the search may not be a general exploratory search for the purpose of finding evidence of crime but must be made for the justifiable purpose of finding, listing and securing from loss, during the arrested person’s detention, property belonging to him. . . .” ( 497 P.2d at 870-871 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 18 Ariz. App. 579 - State v. Bertram