State v. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Commonwealth v. Almonor (2019), United States v. Lambis (2016)
20 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. § 3117 (§ 108 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3127 (§ 301 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 47 U.S.C. § 1002
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Illinois v. Gates · Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · United States v. Leon
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Information obtained relevant to criminal investigations (a)(1) Upon application made under § 10-4B-03 of this subtitle, the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or a trap and trace device within the jurisdiction of tiie court if the court finds that information likely to be obtained by the installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation, [[Image here]] Contents of order (b) An order issued under this section shall: (1) Specify the identity, if known, of the person to whom is leased or in whose name is listed the telephone line or other facility to which the pen register or trap and trace device is to be attached or applied; (2) Specify the identity, if known, of the person who is the subject of the criminal investigation; (3) Specify the attributes of the communications to which the order applies, including the number or other identifier and, if known, the location of the telephone line or other facility to which the pen register or trap and trace device is to be attached or applied, and, in the case of a trap and trace device, the geographic limits of the trap and trace order; (4) Contain a description of the offense to which the information likely to be obtained by the pen register or trap and trace device relates; and (5) Direct, upon the request of the applicant, the furnishing of information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the installation of the pen register or tra”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Copes“unless a valid exception to the warrant requirement applies, the government may not use a cell phone simulator[ 8 ] without a warrant or, alternatively, a specialized order that requires a particularized showing of probable cause, based on sufficient information about the technology involved to allow a court to contour reasonable limitations on the scope and manner , of the search, and that pro vides adequate protections in case any third-party cell phone information might be unintentionally intercepted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Commonwealth v. Cole“Unlike CSLI, the “pings” picked up by the cell-site simulator are not transmitted in the normal course of, the phone’s operation. Rather, “cell, site simulators actively locate phones by forcing them to repeatedly transmit their unique identifying electronic serial numbers, and then calculating the signal strength until the target phone is pinpointed.””
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.