State v. Rodriguez’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
96 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably State v. Garner (1995), Mulligan v. Rioux (1994)
96 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 Illinois v. Gates · Glasser v. United States · Katz v. United States · Franks v. Delaware · Aguilar v. Texas
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`a magistrate has determined that the warrant affidavit presents sufficient objective indicia of reliability to justify a search and has issued a warrant, a court reviewing that warrant at a subsequent suppression hearing should defer to the reasonable inferences drawn by the magistrate.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Whether the defendant "possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in the automobile requires a factual inquiry into all the relevant circumstances surrounding its [search]." State v. Pittman , 209 Conn. 596 , 601 , 553 A.2d 155 (1989). . . . Even individuals who do not legally own an automobile may be entitled to challenge its search. See State v. Darwin , [ 161 Conn. 413 , 420 , 288 A.2d 422 (1971)]; see also United States v. Garcia , 897 F.2d 1413 , 1418 (7th Cir. 1990) ("[i]f an individual has the owner's permission to use [the automobile], society surely recognizes this [expectation of privacy] as reasonable") . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“To receive fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, a defendant must have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded area. . . . "Absent such an expectation, the subsequent police action has no constitutional ramifications." . . . The determination of whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched requires a two part factual inquiry: first, whether the defendant has exhibited an actual subjective expectation of privacy; and second, whether that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.