221 W. Va. 70 - State v. Mullens’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably 227 W. Va. 1 - Ullom v. Miller (2010), 231 W. Va. 227 - SER Discover Financial Services, Inc. v. Hon. David W. Nibert and SER Glaxosmithkline, LLC v. Hon. James H. Young, Jr. (2013)
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 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3121 (§ 301 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 47 U.S.C. § 1001 (Communications Assistance for Law) · 47 U.S.C. § 605
Relies on Katz v. United States · Mitchell v. Forsyth · United States v. White · 162 W. Va. 672 - Pauley v. Kelly · State v. Glass
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is a violation of West Virginia Constitution article III, § 6 for the police to invade the privacy and sanctity of a person’s home by employing an informant to surreptitiously use an electronic surveillance device to record matters occurring in that person’s home without first obtaining a duly authorized court order pursuant to W. Va.Code § 62-1D-11 (1987) (Repl.Vol.2005). 9 To the extent that State v. Thompson, 176 W.Va. 300 , 342 S.E.2d 268 (1986), holds differently, it is overruled. Article III, § 6 of the West Virginia Constitution prohibits the police from sending an informant into the home of another person under the auspices of the one-party consent to electronic surveillance provisions of W. Va.Code § 62-1D-3[(c)](2) (1987) (Repl.Vol.2005) where the police have not obtained prior authorization to do so pursuant to W. Va.Code § 62-1D-11 (1987) (Repl.Vol.2005).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals shall, on an annual basis, designate five active circuit court judges to individually hear and rule upon applications for orders authorizing the interception of wire, oral or electronic communications: Provided, That no designated circuit judge may consider any application for such an order if he or she presides as judge of the circuit court of the county wherein the applied for installation would occur or of the county wherein the communications facility, line or device to be monitored is located.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It is lawful under this article for a person to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or the Constitution or laws of this state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.