Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 177 Mont. 193 - State v. Means

State v. Means’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
3
states following
April 2003
most recently cited

13 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3651

Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Johnson v. United States · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Bumper v. North Carolina · Agnello v. United States

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"Fourth amendment protection will be diminished not only for parolees, but also for the family and friends with whom the parolee might be living. Those bystanders may find themselves subject to warrantless searches only because they are good enough to shelter the parolee, and they may therefore be less willing to help him — a sadly ironic result in a system designed to encourage reintegration into society. Moreover, the demeaning effect of arbitrary intrusions into the parolee's privacy will be reflected in the attitudes of his relatives and friends. As a result, the parolee will suffer diminished feelings of self-worth, making his rehabilitation more difficult. In addition, warrantless parole officer searches may reinforce patterns of resentment to authority, and excessive external controls may inhibit the development of necessary internal controls: `a person must have the freedom to be responsible if he is to become responsibly free.'" (Footnotes omitted.) 51 N.Y.U.L.Rev. at 816-817.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘There are exceptional circumstances in which, on balancing the need for effective law enforcement against the right of privacy, it may be contended that a magistrate’s warrant for search may be dispensed with. But this is not such a case. No reason is offered for not obtaining a search warrant except the inconvenience to the officers and some slight delay necessary to prepare papers and present the evidence to a magistrate. . . No suspect was fleeing or likely to take flight. The search was of permanent premises, not of a movable vehicle. No evidence or contraband was threatened with removal or destruction. ..’ ” State v. Means, supra, 177 Mont. 193 , 581 P.2d at 410-411 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"I conclude with the admonition that ... there are many more problems related to those mentioned herein that necessarily need consideration before Montana can assume a respectable position in the matter. We must also consider the rights of those who reside with a probationer — his wife, children, mother and others. These problems do not go away by just ignoring them." 581 P.2d at 417.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.