State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2010
3 federal appellate · 20 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3109
Relies on Payton v. New York · Mincey v. Arizona · Miller v. United States · United States v. Edwards · United States v. Lefkowitz
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There has long been a rule at common law that an officer seeking to gain admission to a private dwelling in order to execute a warrant must first make his presence known, give his identity and purpose and ask for admission. If denied admission, the officer may then forcibly gain entrance. The rule was stated in an English case decided in 1604: ‘In all cases when the King ... is party, the sheriff (if the doors be not open) may break the party’s house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the K[ing]’s process, if otherwise he cannot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors ____’ Semayne’s Case, 5 Coke 91, 77 Eng. Rep. 194, 195 (1604). The rule is commonly referred to as the knock and announce rule. The reasons most often cited for the common law rule are the protection of an individual’s right of privacy in his house, and the prevention of violence. Sabbath v. United States, 391 U.S. 585, 589 (1968). The knock and announce rule has been widely adopted in the United States. The Congress of the United States codified the common law rule for federal law enforcement officials in 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (1985). Numerous States have also adopted the common law knock and announce rule either through case law, e.g., People v. Lujan, 174 Colo. 554, 559 , 484 P.2d 1238, 1241 (1971); State v. Johnson, 102 R.I. 344, 351-52 , 230 A.2d 831, 835 (1967); or by statute, e.g., Deering’s Cal. Penal Code, § 1531 (1982); ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Thompson“It is not improper for a police officer to call at a particular house and seek admission for the purpose of investigating a complaint or conducting other official business.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rodriguez“New Hampshire police officers, before forcibly entering a dwelling, should knock, identify themselves and their purpose, and demand admittance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Rodriguez
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.