State v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
September 2004
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3109
Relies on Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Richards v. Wisconsin · Wolff v. McDonnell · 123 Wash. 2d 173 - State v. Young · 115 Wash. 2d 571 - State v. Boland
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.
“rule in RCW 10.31.040 states: To make an arrest in criminal actions, the officer may break open any outer or inner door, or windows of a dwelling house or other building, or any other inclosure, if, after notice of his office and purpose, he be refused admittance.[ [38] ] The federal statute containing the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) announce their identity, (2) announce their purpose, (3) demand admittance, (4) announce the purpose of their demand, and (5) be explicitly or implicitly denied admittance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The purpose of the knock and announce rule is different in cases involving closed doors and open doors. In this case, there is an area of visibility which is not present in a closed door situation. The open glass door gave the defendant an opportunity to see the police officers. Thus their presence was known to him prior to their entry.... Prior to entering the apartment, and after his presence was made known, Detective Erickson announced "Police, search warrant," which informed the defendant of their presence, identity, and purpose.... The officers entered immediately after announcing their presence and purpose. Since the defendant turned around and made eye contact with them prior to their entry, he knew who they were and why they were there. Thus they did not need to wait for him to permit or deny entrance into the apartment. The context in which this happened required the police to act quickly.[ [32] ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Richards
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.