State v. Evers’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
110 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2707 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Katz v. United States · United States v. Leon · Mapp v. Ohio · United States v. Ventresca
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since the [child pornography] materials are illegal to distribute and possess, initial collection is difficult. Having succeeded in obtaining images, collectors are unlikely to quickly destroy them. Because of their illegality and the imprimatur of severe social stigma such images carry, collectors will want to secret them in secure places, like a private residence. This proposition is not novel in either state or federal court: pedophiles, preferential child molesters, and child pornography collectors maintain their materials for significant periods of time.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(7) The defendant has no history of prior delinquency or criminal activity ...; (8) The defendant’s conduct was the result of circumstances unlikely to recur; (9) The character and attitude of the defendant indicate that [s]he is unlikely to commit another offense; (12) The willingness of the defendant to cooperate with law enforcement authorities; (13) The conduct of a youthful defendant was substantially influenced by another person more mature than the defendant. [N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1b.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.