95 Or. App. 297 - State v. Schellhorn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “immediate threat of serious physical injury to the officer or to others then present.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Or. App. 95 - State v. Gilkey · 120 Or. App. 151 - State v. Johnson

2. “"[O]nce the officer had seized the purse, he no longer had any reason to believe that it still posed an immediate threat to him. The fact that the purse was unusually heavy may have given the officer reason to believe that it contained a weapon. However, the officer had the purse in his possession and, if he believed that it contained a weapon, he could have taken steps to protect himself without opening it. Before the officer could open the purse and inspect its contents, he was required to have probable cause to believe that it contained evidence of a crime and there had to be exigent circumstances to justify not obtaining a search warrant. Neither of those conditions existed. Thus, the officer's inspection of the contents of the purse after seizing it was unlawful." Schellhorn, 95 Or.App. at 301 , 769 P.2d 221 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Or. App. 95 - State v. Gilkey

3. “"If a search or seizure is carried out in such a manner that things seized in the course of the search would be subject to suppression, and if as a result of such search or seizure other evidence is discovered subsequently and offered against a defendant, such evidence shall be subject to a motion to suppress unless the prosecution establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that such evidence would have been discovered by law enforcement authorities irrespective of such search or seizure, and the court finds that exclusion of such evidence is not necessary to deter violations of ORS 133.525 to 133.703."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 127 Or. App. 382 - State v. Blasingame