Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 186 WASHAPP 184 - State v. Budd

State v. Budd’s Empirical Analysis

2015

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Payton v. New York · Boyd v. United States · Arkansas v. Sanders · California v. Acevedo · State v. Hendrickson

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

  1. “[Detective Holmes] explained why she was there and [Budd] approached and admitted possessing hundreds of images depicting minors involved in “sexually explicit conduct.” Detective Holmes asked [Budd] for consent to enter his home and search his computer. [Budd] asked if the detective had a warrant. The detective replied that she would apply for a warrant if he did not consent. [Budd] told the detective he did not want his computer previewed in front of his girlfriend. The troopers agreed not to view the computer’s contents in view of [Budd’s] girlfriend. The Defendant then gave consent to entry of his home for the purpose of searching his computer. Upon entering [Budd’s] home and before searching the computer, the troopers went over a written consent form with [Budd,] which contained all the warnings associated with State v. Ferrier, 136 [Wn.]2d 103, 960 P.2d 927 (1998). [Budd] signed the document acknowledging he understood and reaffirming his consent. The troopers seized [Budd’s] computer but did not arrest [Budd]. The computer was later forensically analyzed and found to contain images of child pornography.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the troopers did not violate Ferrier by entering the home initially to go over [Budd’s] rights before commencing the search. There appears to be no controlling authority on this question. But, the purpose of the Ferrier warnings is to prevent a search before advisement of rights. Here, no search was conducted before [Budd] was advised of his Ferrier rights, and the purpose of the Ferrier warnings was accomplished.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Upon entering the Defendant’s home and before searching the computer, the troopers went over a written consent form with the Defendant which contained all the warnings associated with State v. Ferrier, 136 Wn. 2d 103 , 960 P.2d 927 (1998). The Defendant signed the document acknowledging he understood and reaffirming his consent.”
    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.