People v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably 19 Cal. 3d 99 - People v. James (1977), 16 Cal. 3d 690 - People v. Ruster (1976)
2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States v. Wade · Escobedo v. Illinois · Schmerber v. State of California · Gilbert v. California
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The fact that the search leads to incriminating evidence does not make the consent testimonial.”); see also United States v. Payne, 119 F.3d 637 , 643-44 (8th Cir.1997) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“As we see it the answer to the problem before us depends on whether by requesting and obtaining the defendant’s consent for the search of his apartment the police violated a value which Miranda was designed to protect. The question is not whether, had the Miranda warnings been given, defendant would have consented to the search. It may well be that, after being advised of his rights, he would have decided not to cooperate with the police in any way until he had a chance to confer with counsel. What we must decide is whether the Supreme Court’s insistence that an opportunity so to confer be furnished at a particular stage of the criminal investigation was designed to obviate voluntary waivers of Fourth Amendment rights.... ... The inquiry is ... whether the rationale of Miranda extends to post-arrest consents to searches which turn up incriminating evidence. Reasonable minds may differ as to exactly what the Supreme Court attempted to achieve in Miranda. However one interprets Miranda, what becomes subject to exclusion when a warning is not given although the situation calls for one, are ‘statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation.’ [Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612] ... A consent to search ... is neither testimonial, nor communicative in the Fifth Amendment sense. If appearing in a lineup and speaking words used by a robber is not a ‘disclosure of any knowledge [the accused] might have’ (United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ealy · State v. Metz
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.