State v. Platten’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · most notably Payton v. New York (1980), State v. Horn (2004)
59 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 Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Chambers v. Maroney
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘(1) the gravity or violent nature of the offense with which the suspect is to be charged; (2) whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed; (3) a clear showing of probable cause; (4) strong reasons to believe that the suspect is in the premises; (5) a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended and (6) the peaceful circumstances of the entry. It is also recognized that the possible loss or destruction of evidence is a factor to be considered. [Citations omitted.]’ 225 Kan. at 770 .” Weas, 26 Kan. App. 2d at 601 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Tolson · State v. Thomas““Searches conducted without a warrant issued on probable cause are ‘per se’ unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated circumstances.” Syl. ¶ 3. “The Fourth Amendment and Section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protect a citizen’s reasonable expectations of privacy and one’s reasonable expectation of privacy in his own home is entitled to unique sensitivity.” Syl. ¶ 4. “The burden of proof is on the State to show circumstances justifying an exception to the warrant requirement.” Syl. ¶ 7.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(b) The officer has probable cause to believe that a warrant for the person’s arrest has been issued in this state or in another jurisdiction for a felony committed therein. “(c) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person is committing or has committed: (1) A felony; or (2) a misdemeanor, and the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that: (A) The person will not be apprehended or evidence of the crime will be irretrievably lost unless the person is immediately arrested; (B) tire person may cause injury to self or others or damage to property unless immediately arrested; or (C) tire person has intentionally inflicted bodily harm to another person. “(d) Any crime, except a traffic infraction or a cigarette or tobacco infraction, has been or is being committed by the person in tire officer s view.” K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 22-2401.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hill
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.