987 So. 2d 23 - Wyche v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[When a defendant validly consents to the giving of the bodily substance, whether saliva, hair, or blood, for use in a criminal investigation, the characteristics of the substance can be used in investigations unrelated to the one for which the defendant was told the sample was collected. This holding is logical because the DNA profile derived from a bodily substance like saliva, hair, or blood is a constant identifying fact that does not change or disappear.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 150 So. 3d 1240 - State v. Gibson · People v. Collins

2. “affords a presumption of correctness to a trial court's findings of fact but reviews de novo the mixed questions of law and fact that arise in the application of the historical facts to the protections of the Fourth Amendment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 274 So. 3d 1222 - Edwards v. State · 997 So. 2d 499 - Smith v. State

3. “While we approve the First District's decision in Wyche, we distinguish rather than disapprove the Fourth District's decision in McCord . We find that there are circumstances in McCord upon which that court could have determined under the totality of the circumstances that McCord's consent was coerced. McCord was suspected in a substantial number of robberies. While McCord was in custody on unrelated charges, an investigator told him that he was a suspect in a rape, which was fictitious, and that a saliva sample could exclude him from the rape investigation. At no time did the investigator tell McCord that he was a suspect in the robberies. McCord was thereafter charged in the robberies, and the saliva sample was used in the prosecution. The investigator testified that he believed McCord consented to the saliva sample only because he wanted to clear his name in the fictitious rape case. This candid testimony supports a finding that the investigator's deception caused McCord to feel coerced into consenting. While we do not believe that a defendant's consent to a search should be interpreted as being conditioned on the resulting evidence being used only in investigations of crimes that the defendant knows that he or she did not commit, we recognize that a defendant's understandable desire to clear his or her name of the stigma of a rape accusation is a circumstance to consider. McCord's being told that he was a suspect in a serious sex crime for which DNA could clear him is a c”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 989 So. 2d 757 - State v. Bartling