13 Md. App. 439 - Robinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
March 1976
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Anders v. California · Katz v. United States · Chimel v. California · Hoffa v. United States · Mancusi v. DeForte
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.
““We hold that the search of the room and seizure of the evidence was not constitutionally proscribed. The Fourth Amendment protects ‘* * * the security a man relies upon when he places himself or his property within a constitutionally protected area * * * . There he is protected from unwarranted governmental intrusion.’ Hoffa v. United States, 385 U. S. 293, 301 . But it is what a person justifi ably seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, which may be constitutionally protected from unwarranted governmental intrusion, for ‘the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.’ Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 . The capacity to claim its protection ‘depends not upon a property right in the invalid place, but upon whether the area was one in which there was a reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.’ Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U. S. 364, 368 . Thus ‘ * * * the expectation of privacy is necessarily limited to that which is justifiable and reasonable; and what that encompasses depends upon and is controlled by the circumstances of each case.’ Kirsch v. State, 10 Md. App. 565, 569 . “Robinson in oral argument before us conceded the legality of his warrantless arrest and clearly it was legal. Wescott v. State, 11 Md. App. 305 . But the validity of the search and seizure here is not predicated upon it being incident to a legal arrest in any event. See Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 . It is simply that as to Robinson and Jones ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.