State v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 2005 Pa. Super. 166 - Commonwealth v. Jones (2005), State v. Case (2007)
34 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Elison · United States v. Smith · State v. Tackitt · United States v. Wellons · State v. Isom
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Considering [the defendant’s] status as an unauthorized driver, combined with his failure to demonstrate any relationship with the authorized user, it is doubtful that he had an actual or subjective expectation of privacy in the vehicle’s trunk and its contents. [The defendant], because he was an unauthorized driver, lacked the right to exclude others from the trunk of the car, suggesting a corresponding lack of a subjective expectation of privacy therein. However, assuming, arguendo, that [the defendant] did have a subjective expectation, we conclude that the expectation was not objectively reasonable. Like the defendant in [State v.] McCarthy, [ 258 Mont. 51 , 852 P.2d 111 (Mont. 1993), the defendant] did not own the vehicle. Further, [the defendant] had not rented the car, and he had no permission to use the car. The car was two days overdue to Avis. [The defendant] failed to establish any relationship whatsoever to the last authorized renter of the car. And importantly, [the defendant] voluntarily relinquished any interest in the vehicle’s trunk and its contents. [The defendant] voluntarily relinquished any control he exercised over the contents of the trunk by twice overtly denying knowledge or ownership of anything there and once implicitly doing so. [W]e find [the defendant] had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and its contents. Therefore, there was no unlawful government intrusion into [the defendant’s] privacy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the person has an actual expectation of privacy; (2) whether society is willing to recognize that expectation as objectively reasonable; and (3) the nature of the State’s intrusion.”
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.