State v. Isaac’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2702 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Leon · Payton v. New York · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · Mincey v. Arizona
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The issue in this case turns on whether the circumstances known to law enforcement and presented to Sprint/Nextel were within the category of "exigent circumstances" that permit warrantless searches. "The core question is whether the facts ... would lead a reasonable, experienced officer, to believe that there was an urgent need to ... take action." United States v. Klump , 536 F.3d 113 , 117-18 (2d Cir. 2008), cert. denied , 555 U.S. 1061 , 129 S.Ct. 664 , 172 L.Ed.2d 638 (2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "A district court's determination as to whether exigent circumstances existed is fact-specific, and will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous." United States v. MacDonald , 916 F.2d 766 , 769 (2d Cir. 1990) ( en banc ), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 1119 , 111 S.Ct. 1071 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1177 (1991) (citations omitted). .... Because of the frequency and volatile nature of the violent crimes that had been committed, exigent circumstances justified GPS tracking of Defendant's phone to determine his location in order to effectuate his arrest, pursuant to a validly issued arrest warrant, in order to protect the public against additional crimes. Additionally, Sprint/Nextel's disclosure of the GPS tracking information was authorized by the SCA and the use of the real-time GPS location of Defendant's cell phone was no more expansive than necessary to address the exigency that existed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“even if the court were required to find that [law enforcement] acquired the CSLI [cell site location information] in violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, the Leon good faith exception, as further applied by Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340 , 349, 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987), would remove suppression as an available remedy”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“should be extended to instances in which”
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.