State v. Earls’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 6 district · 42 state decisions

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

1. ““Using a [cellular telephone] to determine the location of its owner can be far more revealing than acquiring toll billing, bank, or Internet subscriber records. It is akin to using a tracking device and can function as a substitute for 24/7 surveillance without police having to confront the limits of their resources. It also involves a degree of intrusion that a reasonable person would not anticipate. . . . Location information gleaned from a [cellular telephone] provider can reveal not just where people go — which doctors, religious services, and stores they visit — but also the people and groups they choose to affiliate with and when they actually do so. That information cuts across a broad range of personal ties with family, friends, political groups, health care providers, and others. ... In other words, details about the location of a [cellular telephone] can provide an intimate picture of one’s daily life.” (Citations omitted.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Almonor · Commonwealth v. Augustine

2. “[Olur focus belongs on the obvious: cell phones are not meant to serve as tracking devices to locate their owners wherever they may be. People buy cell phones to communicate with others, to use the Internet, and for a growing number of other reasons. But no one buys a cell phone to share detailed information about their whereabouts with the police.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Almonor · 357 Wis. 2d 172 - State v. Bobby L. Tate

3. “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, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 357 Wis. 2d 172 - State v. Bobby L. Tate