People v. Howard’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently April 2003 · most notably 21 Cal. 4th 668 - People v. Woods (1999), 28 Cal. 4th 22 - People v. Willis (2002)
30 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 United States v. Leon · Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary · Michigan v. · 15 Cal. 3d 481 - People v. Lent · 34 Cal. 3d 251 - People v. Smith
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]onsistent with the deterrence goal of the exclusionary rule ... we focus not on the actions of the arresting officer but on the conduct of law enforcement generally. Suppressing the fruits of an arrest made on a recalled warrant will deter further misuse of the computerized criminal information systems and foster more diligent maintenance of accurate and current records. * * * * * * Although in this case the arresting officer no doubt acted in good faith reliance on the information communicated to him through "official channels," law enforcement officials are collectively responsible for keeping those channels free of out-dated, incomplete, and inaccurate warrant information. That the police now rely on elaborate computerized data processing systems to catalogue and dispatch incriminating information enhances rather than diminishes that responsibility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The important policy considerations underlying the rule announced in Ramirez are plain. If negligent or inadequate recordkeeping is excused merely because a fellow officer is dispatched to make an arrest or, by analogy, effectuate a search without actual knowledge of the negligence, inaccuracies, or inadequacies in the recordkeeping procedure, important safeguards now in place to protect the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment will be lost.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“exception in the context of the collective knowledge rule reject the applicability of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. In Joseph, supra, for example, a case similar to that sub judice, after distinguishing the Leon facts from those before it, the court noted the problems evolving”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ott v. State
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.