Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2005 ND 140 - State v. Ressler

State v. Ressler’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

1 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2026

1 district · 17 state decisions

110200520102020decided

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 Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · United States v. Place · Nix v. Williams

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

  1. “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “had reasonable suspicion to suspect Res-sler’s package, and this level of suspicion would have justified a decision to detain the package at We Ship pending further investigation. By transporting the package, however, police executed the seizure in a manner we believe is contrary to the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable seizures. A seizure of a package based on reasonable suspicion affords government officials less command, dominion, or control over the package than they would possess if executing a full-fledged seizure based on probable cause or a warrant. A contrary conclusion would distend the rationale for a Terry stop to a point where it envelops a seizure based on probable cause or a seizure supported by a warrant. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Police could not seize Ressler’s package to a greater extent than by placing it in their exclusive control, removing it from the location where it was submitted for shipping, and transporting it to a law enforcement center. This full-fledged seizure required either probable cause supported by an exception to the warrant requirement or a warrant to be valid. [United, States v.] Place, 462 U.S. [696,] 701-02, 103 S.Ct. 2637 [ 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983) ]; see Garmon v. Foust, 741 F.2d 1069, 1073-74 [ (8th Cir. 1984) ] (finding exigent circumstances existed where a shipped parcel could be lost or mistakenly delivered). A Terry stop of a package is distinguishable from a full-fledged ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[p]robable cause is required for a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of our state constitution.”
    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.