Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 977 SW2D 855 - Hutto v. State

Hutto v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
February 2002
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Berkemer v. McCarty · Stansbury v. California · Guzman v. State · Sanders v. United States

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

  1. “Appellant was standing behind the truck, and Miner asked him if anybody had been hurt. Appellant responded by stating, “I missed my turn.” ... Miner asked appellant for his driver’s license, and appellant pulled his wallet out, spilling papers and credit cards on the ground. Appellant then bent over to pick up his papers, and stumbled twice in the process. Miner noted that appellant’s speech was slurred, and that he smelled strongly of alcohol. Suspecting that appellant may be intoxicated, Miner asked appellant to perform field sobriety tests. Officer Beason arrived at the scene, and proceeded to videotape appellant doing field sobriety tests and talking to the officers.... The record taken by the court reporter indicates appellant performed several field sobriety tests, and told the officers he had “four beers.” Officer Miner told appellant he failed all his tests, and placed appellant under arrest for DWI at that point.... After he arrested appellant, Miner took him to the patrol car, and then read appellant his Miranda warnings. Thereafter, appellant was taken to the police station and given a breath test which provided readings of .184 and ,189. 22”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In this case, as in Stevenson , there is no evidence in the record of appellant’s subjective perception that he did not feel free to leave. There is no evidence in this record that [Officer] Miner manifested to appellant any intent to arrest until after the field sobriety testing was complete, and Miner informed appellant he was under arrest for DWI. We find that appellant’s investigation for field sobriety testing and questioning did not convert the roadside stop into an arrest. These acts are not sufficient to establish custody under Miranda.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.