State v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2023
22 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 14135A
Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · Schmerber v. State of California · Hudson v. Palmer · New Jersey v. T. L. O. · Cady v. Dombrowski
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We conclude that the O’Hagen reasoning also applies under Article 11, and that DNA sampling and analysis to assist in identifying persons at future crime scenes is a special need beyond normal law enforcement. Vermont’s DNA database statute has as its stated purpose “to assist federal, state and local criminal justice and law enforcement agencies in the identification, detection or exclusion of individuals who are subjects of the investigation or prosecution of violent crimes.” 20 V.S.A. § 1931. These purposes are distinct from the normal law-enforcement activities of investigating particular people for crimes already committed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Medina“It is the policy of this state to assist federal, state, and local criminal justice and law enforcement agencies in the identification, detection, or exclusion of individuals who are subjects of the investigation or prosecution of crimes. Identification, detection, and exclusion may be facilitated by the DNA analysis of biological evidence left by the perpetrator of a crime and recovered from the crime scene. The DNA analysis of biological evidence can also be used to identify missing persons.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Medina“Requiring the State to demonstrate that it has special needs for a warrantless, suspicionless search or seizure `focuses attention on the nature and extent of those needs and allows the courts, as the traditional protectors of [Article Eleven] rights, to pursue the necessary balancing test in a manner calculated to interfere least with preservation of those rights.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Handy
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.