State v. Webber’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2019
15 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 Terry v. Ohio · Berkemer v. McCarty · Angrist v. United States · 92 Wis. 2d 427 - State v. Flynn · State v. Sterndale
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Although] denying an officer the ability to at least ascertain the identity of an individual "could have a perplexing effect on law enforcement efforts[,]" [u]nder part I, article 19 of our constitution, ... the protection from unreasonable searches is not diminished by the desire, no matter how laudable, to aid law enforcement. In addition, the warrantless search in this case cannot be sanctioned as a necessary means to aid law enforcement; Trooper Holdsworth had lawful alternatives that he could have followed to ascertain the defendant's identity....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The State has failed to persuade us that the need for Trooper Holdsworth to discover the defendant's identity justifies nibbling away at the defendant's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches. Because the search of the defendant's wallet was "manifestly exploratory in nature," it violated both the letter and the spirit of part I, article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“it violated both the letter and the spirit of part I, article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution. [ Id. at 972-73 (citations omitted).] This rationale is sound and should be adopted in this state. Practical convenience in aid of law enforcement administration is laudable, but it is not an objectively reasonable basis to justify”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.