State v. Schlosser’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
1 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably 74 Wis. 2d 647 - State v. Tarrell (1976), State v. Montgomery (1977)
1 district · 23 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 United States v. Biswell · Burns v. United States · Roberts v. United States · 5 Cal. 3d 759 - People v. Mason · 256 Cal. App. 2d 623 - People v. Dominguez
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]ersons conditionally released to society . . . may have a reduced expectation of privacy, thereby rendering certain intrusions by governmental authorities “reasonable” which otherwise would be invalid under traditional constitutional concepts, at least to the extent that such intrusions are necessitated by legitimate governmental demands. (Citations omitted) Thus, a probationer who has been granted the privilege of probation on condition that he submit at any time to a warrantless search may have no reasonable expectation of traditional Fourth Amendment protection.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““A condition of probation which (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality does not serve the statutory ends of probation and is invalid.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Perbix““... defendant’s status as a probationer does affect his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The court has a responsibility to regulate a probationer’s activities to help in his rehabilitation and at the same time to guard against continued criminal behavior.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Perbix
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.