98 Wis. 2d 345 - State v. Prober’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

88 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, the search is invalid unless the searching officer is actually motivated by a perceived need to render aid or assistance. Second, even though the requisite motivation is found to exist, until it can be found that a reasonable person under the circumstances would have thought an emergency existed, the search is invalid.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Auman · 97 Wash. 2d 562 - State v. Loewen

2. ““The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Art. I, sec. 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution is substantially the same. Warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967). These exceptions are “jealously and carefully drawn.” Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 499 (1958). [Footnote omitted.]”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 131 Wis. 2d 153 - State v. Fry · 106 Wis. 2d 503 - State v. Callaway

3. “Having ruled that Officer Szombathe-lyi could legally open the defendant’s car trunk for purposes of conducting an inventory, we must now decide whether the search of the defendant’s purse, found inside the trunk, was also within the permissible scope of that inventory. For the reasons set forth in McDougal, we conclude that it was not. In that case we said: “To most people the contents of their locked suitcases or traveling bags are or can be extremely personal. To have these items examined and handled by strangers can cause embarrassment and humiliation. It is this type of invasion into one’s privacy that our constitutions sought to prohibit.” 68 Wis.2d [399] at 413-14, 228 N.W.2d [671] at 678. This prohibition extends not just to locked suitcases in car trunks but to all closed or sealed containers, locked or unlocked found within the vehicle. In recognizing that there is a greater expectation of privacy in closed or sealed containers found inside a vehicle than there is in a vehicle itself, we are balancing the need of the government (here, those relating to inventory searches) against the right of people to be free of warrantless intrusions into their personal effects. The balance tips in favor of the privacy of personal effects because the purpose of an inventory can be adequately served by inventorying a container as a closed unit. It is thereby secure from theft, and exposure to claims of loss is reduced. But see: State v. McDougal, 68 Wis.2d at 415-16, 228 N.W.2d 671”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 155 Wis. 2d 537 - State v. Weide · State v. Casteel