207 Ill. 2d 231 - People v. Lampitok’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 122 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably 223 Ill. 2d 187 - People v. Sutherland (2006), 219 Ill. 2d 104 - People v. Garvin (2006)
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 122 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 Terry v. Ohio · Illinois v. Gates · Katz v. United States · Morrissey v. Brewer · Mapp v. Ohio
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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“narrow exception [that Krueger ] carved to the lockstep doctrine in the fourth amendment context”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘Exceptions to the requirement of individualized suspicion are generally appropriate only where the privacy interests implicated by a search are minimal and where “other safeguards” are available “to assure that the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy is not ‘subject to the discretion of the official in the field.’ ” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654-55 (1979) (citation omitted).’ ” Lampitok, 207 Ill. 2d at 254 , quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 , 342 n.8, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 , 735 n.8, 105 S. Ct. 733 , 743 n.8 (1985).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"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 Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const., amend. IV.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. People v. Manzo
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.