State v. Fields’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
June 2017
most recently cited
11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Alderman v. United States · 47 Cal. App. 3d 16 - People v. Mardian · United States v. Sumpter · State v. Winkler · 75 Cal. App. 3d 592 - People v. Watson
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he purpose of Rule 41(c), N.D.R.Crim.P., is to protect citizens from being subjected to the trauma of unwarranted nighttime searches. Courts have long recognized that nighttime searches constitute greater intrusions on privacy than do daytime searches.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Rule 41 is an adaptation of Fed. R.Crim.P. 41 and is designed to implement the provisions of Article I, Section 8, of the North Dakota Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantee, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized.” To implement this constitutional protection, an illegal search and seizure will bar the use of such evidence in a criminal prosecution. The suppression sanction is imposed in order to discourage abuses of power by law enforcement officials in conducting searches and seizures.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roth v. State““Merely alleging the presence of marijuana and methamphetamine does not allow one to infer the drugs were easily disposable.” State v. Utvick, 2004 ND 36, ¶ 21 , 675 N.W.2d 387 . An officer must set forth some facts for believing the evidence will be destroyed other than its mere existence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roth v. State
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.