226 Pa. Super. 372 - Commonwealth v. DeWitt’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2016
3 federal appellate · 15 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 19 U.S.C. § 482
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · United States v. Dionisio · Lubin v. Allison · New York v. Penn Central Transportation Co.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[Defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy as to the presence of foreign matter on their hands independent of the expectation of the privacy of their premises, which had been legitimately invaded by the police. The grease may be compared to a physical characteristic, such as a fingerprint or one’s voice, which is ‘constantly exposed to the public.’ United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 14 , 93 S.Ct. 764 , 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973). The Fourth Amendment provides no protection for what ‘a person knowingly exposes to the public.’ Katz v. United States, [ 389 U.S. 347 ] at 351 [ (1967) ].... It is true that the grease could not be detected with the naked eye, but then, neither may a fingerprint be examined until there has been an application of ink. Furthermore, the examination was both limited and controlled, affording no opportunity to learn any information other than that specifically sought: Have the person’s hands been in contact with the treated contraband? In this respect, the examination was more circumscribed than any eavesdropping, electronic surveillance, long-distance viewing with binoculars, or even the use of a flashlight. Also, it involved no personal indignities or physical discomfort, and was neither annoying, frightening, or humiliating. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). “In these circumstances the use of the ultraviolet light to examine defendants’ hands did not amount to a search. It may well be that in other circums”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[D]efendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy as to the presence of foreign matter on their hands independent of the expectation of the privacy of their premises, which had been legitimately invaded by the police. The [fluorescent] grease may be compared to a fingerprint or one's voice, which is "constantly exposed to the public." United States v. Dionisio . ... The Fourth Amendment provides no protection for what "a person knowingly exposes to the public." Katz v. United States .... It is true that the grease could not be detected with the naked eye, but then, neither may a fingerprint be examined until there has been an application of ink. 314 A.2d at 30-31 . All but one of the courts to have addressed the issue have agreed that illumination by ultraviolet light does not constitute a search. See United States v. Richardson, 388 F.2d 842 (6th Cir.1968); United States v. DeMarsh, 360 F.Supp. 132 (E.D.Wis.1973); United States v. Millen, 338 F.Supp. 747 (E.D.Wis.1972); but see United States v. Kenaan, 496 F.2d 181 (1st Cir.1974).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“United States v. Dionisio . ... The Fourth Amendment provides no protection for what”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.