State v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 30 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It would seem ... that the latter position [that police are never required to seek magistrate authorization for a no-knock entry] is correct, for it is supported by “a number of fundamental principles: 1) the rule of announcement is a requirement of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness' clause, not its warrant clause; 2) the validity of a no-knock execution of a search warrant is subject to after-the fact judicial review for constitutional reasonableness, which is determined by reference to the circumstances as they existed at the time of the entry; and 3) the manner in which a search warrant is executed is not subject to the requirements of the warrant clause and therefore does not require prior judicial authorization.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Musa · 2003 WI App 101 - State v. Whiting

2. “The determination of reasonableness is made by reference to the particular circumstances of each individual case and balances 'the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sveum · 337 Wis. 2d 351 - State v. Avery

3. “The Fourth Amendment's warrant clause provides ... particularized protections governing the manner in which search and arrest warrants are issued.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 384 Wis. 2d 416 - State v. Johnny K. Pinder · State v. Sveum