95 Ohio App. 3d 255 - State v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The next facet of this issue is whether the patrolman exceeded the scope of the consent obtained when he looked under the front seat. The trend of federal decisions is clearly in favor of a standard of reasonableness. United States v. Strickland (C.A.11, 1990), 902 F.2d 937 ; Canada v. State (1988), 104 Nev. 288 , 756 P.2d 552 ; United States v. $83,900 in U.S. Currency (D.Kan.1991), 774 F.Supp. 1305 , citing Florida v. Jimeno (1991), 500 U.S. 248 , 111 S.Ct. 1801 , 114 L.Ed.2d 297 . In Jimeno , the court referred to ‘ “objective” reasonableness— what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?’ Id. at 251 , 111 S.Ct. at 1803-1804 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 302 . Using this standard, the court found that Jimeno' s general consent to search the car included permission to open a folded paper bag found on the floorboards. The instant search was much more innocuous and, thus, ‘objectively reasonable.’ ” (Emphasis sic.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 118 Ohio App. 3d 516 - State v. Mack