97 Okla. Crim. 299 - Brinegar v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 43 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““An arresting officer in determining what is to be searched for should consider the nature of the accusation; the search is then limited to evidence to support the crime charged or to be charged. But where contraband is discovered incidental to such search, it would be the duty of the officer to take and hold the same to be disposed of as the court would direct. “Officers are not justified after a valid arrest of motorist for minor traffic violation, in searching his person or his immediate presence, such as the seats and glove compartment of his car, excepting in cases where the officers have reasonable grounds for such action, the seats and glove compartment of the car may be searched for firearms, and this only as a precaution for the safety of the arresting officer and to prevent escape, when done in good faith. “The cardinal proposition for consideration in the determination of the lawfulness of a search of a motorist, after arrest for a minor traffic violation, such as may be found in some of the provisions of the Uniform Traffic Code, Tit. 47 O.S.1951, §§ 121.1-121.13, or municipal ordinances covering traffic, is was it reasonable? And this is a judicial question to be determined in each case in view of all the facts and circumstances under which the search and seizure was made.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Edwards v. State · Peterson v. State

2. ““Coming now to the practical application of the rule .approved by this court, it has been held in a long line of cases that where one is arrested for any traffic violation or any other offense committed in the presence of the arresting officers, and they then discover that the driver of the vehicle is in a state of intoxication, that as an incident to his arrest his vehicle may be searched for liquor, which of course would be pertinent as proof in support of a charge of drunk driving or more properly operating a motor vehicle while under'the influence of intoxicating liquor. Worley v. State, 77 Okl.Cr. 154 , 140 P.2d 246 ; Moore v. State, 51 Okl.Cr. 411 , 1 P.2d 813 ; Raper v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 18 , 248 P.2d 267 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barnard v. State · Workman v. State

3. ““* * * [The] rule whereby officers acting upon belief reasonably arising out of the circumstances known to the searching officers may search an automobile without a warrant, though followed in federal courts, and some state courts, is not applicable to prosecutions in the state courts of Oklahoma.” 262 P.2d at 468 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hughes v. State · Embree v. State