State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Eisentrager , a landlady had reason to believe that her tenant had vacated his apartment. She entered the apartment and found the corpse of the tenant’s wife hidden under a blanket in a closet. In Eisentrager , the court stated, “the presence of the hidden corpse was the strongest possible evidence to lead her (the landlord) to believe that Eisentrager had abandoned the apartment____’’ After finding the corpse the landlady called the police who entered the apartment. The Eisentrager court concluded that upon finding the corpse the landlady, as owner, had a right to take possession of the apartment, and to invite the police to enter and search. Thus, at the time the officers entered that apartment Eisentrager no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. The facts of the instant case, of course, are otherwise. At the time the officer entered Johnson’s residence, Johnson clearly retained a legitimate expectation of privacy in it. United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Johnson, supra, 108 Idaho at 625, 701 P.2d at 245 (emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson

2. “In the instant case ... the suspected contraband was not turned over to the authorities; instead the landlord invited the officer to enter a private dwelling to observe the contraband first-hand. In this case, the suspected contraband was not in plain view; and the landlord had neither personally seized nor delivered it to the police. The officer had to enter the private dwelling in order to see it. The fact that the Fourth Amendment does not reach the landlord does not mean that the officer, a government official, is also immune from its sanctions simply because he accompanied the landlord. Johnson, supra, 108 Idaho at 622 , 701 P.2d at 242, n. 2 (emphasis to “officer” in original; remainder of emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson

3. “1. Your Affiant received an Order to Respond to a suspicious call from Joe Clevenger, landlord of the above address. 2. Mr. Clevenger indicated that the individual renting apartment # 7 had been told to move due to non-payment of rent. He further indicated that last night, April 12th, 1982, he had entered the apartment to see if the renter had moved and observed suspicious plants growing in five gallon buckets.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson