State v. Hodson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 13 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Once again, we conclude that whether or not this defendant’s airflow or blood supply was actually impaired, the level of violence and force used by the officer was unreasonable because of the enormous risk of such results. It is not plausible to us that in a struggle of this nature, there would not be a very high risk of choking and a very low likelihood of a careful ‘placing’ of hands on the suspect’s neck to prevent swallowing without choking.... The dangers presented by constricting the throat make such force anything but reasonable.... In the refined atmosphere of an appellate court, we can discuss the possibility of a specialty grip that prevents swallowing without choking. However, in'the arrest situation, the necessity of immediately constricting the throat and the suspect’s predictable lack of cooperation preclude carefully selecting points on the throat prior to applying force.... Furthermore, drugs ingested in this manner can only follow two paths: Either they will pass through the system intact because of their packaging, or they will be absorbed into the bloodstream of the swallower. In either event, they are susceptible to identification and recovery in supervised, nonviolent post-arrest settings. No emergency or exigency justifies the use of force at this level to preserve evidence which would be readily (if inconveniently) accessible through nonviolent means.... It is true that a suspect has no right to refuse an order to disgorge, but refusal does not lift all”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Surratt v. McClaran

2. “ItJhere is considerable indication ... that drug dealers commonly seek to secrete drugs by means of swallowing, and it does not seem likely that they would routinely risk their own safety or lives.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Alverez

3. “I 34 The second factor of the Winston test is the extent of intrusion into the "individual's dignitary interests in personal privacy and bodily integrity.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Alverez