96 Ohio App. 3d 375 - State v. Arrington’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches. When an officer conducts a warrantless search, the state bears the burden of establishing the validity of the search. Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S. 443, 454-455 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2032 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 576 . For example, where an officer claims that he had consent to conduct a search, the state must demonstrate that the consent was freely and voluntarily given and not the result of coercion. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), 412 U.S. 218, 248-249 , 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2059 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 875 . “The scope of a consent search is limited by the terms of its authorization and is generally defined by the expressed object of the search. Florida v. Jimeno (1991), 500 U.S. 248, 251 , 111 S.Ct. 1801, 1804 , 114 L.Ed.2d 297, 302 . ‘The standard for measuring the scope of a suspect’s consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of “objective” reasonableness — what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?’ Id. Just as the burden is on the state to demonstrate that a suspect voluntarily consented-to a search, the burden must also be on the state to show that a consent search was performed within the scope of that consent.””

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