State v. Houvener’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

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.

1. “An individual has a privacy interest in the interior of his or her home. E.g., Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589-90 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980); State v. Ferrier, 136 Wash.2d 103 , 960 P.2d 927 (1998). This privacy interest extends to other types of residences, even temporary ones. E.g., Stoner [v. California ], 376 U.S. [483] at 490, 84 S.Ct. 889 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964) ] (hotel rooms); State v. Davis, 86 Wash.App. 414, 419 , 937 P.2d 1110 (1997) (motel rooms); McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 , 69 S.Ct. 191 , 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948) (room in a boarding house). And it applies to university students’ dormitory rooms. Houck v. Univ. of Wash., 60 Wash.App. 189, 199 , 803 P.2d 47 (1991) (applying Wash. Const. art. I, § 7); Piazzola v. Watkins, 442 F.2d 284, 289 (5th Cir.1971) (“a student who occupies a college dormitory room enjoys the protection of the Fourth Amendment”); see also Anobile v. Pelligrino, 303 F.3d 107, 120-21 (2d Cir.2001) (administrative search for drugs in horse race employees’ dormitories located on the racetrack was unconstitutional).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 101 F. Supp. 3d 462 - Wagner v. Holtzapple