State v. Hardaway’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 92 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “No warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing shall issue ... without probable cause”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Missoula v. Kroschel · State v. Neiss

2. “Prior to 1972, Article II, Section 10 did not exist and there was no explicit right of privacy in the Montana Constitution.... For several years after the adoption of the 1972 Montana Constitution, cases raising search and seizure issues under Article II, Section 11 generally followed the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court. Similarly, as the 1972 right to privacy developed, our privacy decisions also tended to follow U.S. Supreme Court decisions.... [F]rom the mid-1980s through the early 1990s, the Court provided no greater protection for individual privacy in search and seizure cases than parallel federal law provided. However, since City of Billings v. Whalen (1990), 242 Mont. 293 , 790 P.2d 471 , this Court has given increased protection to the privacy rights of Montana citizens, limiting the scope of search and seizure cases, and since State v. Bullock [, 272 Mont. 361 , 901 P.2d 61 (1995) ], the Court has applied Article II, Section 10, emphasizing privacy as a mechanism to support interpretation of search and seizure cases. In the ensuing years, we consistently analyzed search and seizure cases involving significant privacy issues under both Sections 10 and 11 of Article II of the Montana Constitution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Neiss

3. ““[W]e conclude that Hardaway, like [the defendant] in Cupp , had a reasonable expectation of privacy as to his person and personal security. We further con- elude that the warrantless swabbing of his hands for the purpose of obtaining evidence constituted a search subject to the protections of the federal and the Montana constitutions. While his hands and the blood upon them were exposed to the public for viewing, it was not the viewing that constituted the search; it was the swabbing.” 3”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dardy v. State