State v. Douglas’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2009
2 federal appellate · 17 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Escobedo v. Illinois · Ker v. State of California · Bumper v. North Carolina
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the officers threaten only to do what the law permits them to do”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Since the primary issue to be decided is whether the consent was voluntary or was coerced, we doubt whether the ordinary person, when confronted with a request by an officer to consent to a search, would discriminate between the statement that otherwise the officer would get a search warrant, as compared with a statement that otherwise he would apply for a warrant. If, however, it be considered that such a distinction has controlling significance, and if it also be considered that the evidence in this case was not sufficiently ‘clear and convincing’ to establish that the officer told defendant that otherwise he would apply for a warrant, rather than get a warrant, we nevertheless reach the same result under the facts and circumstances of this case. This is because the defendant in this case testified that what finally ‘prompted’ him to open the suitcase was what his brother-in-law (not the officers) did and said. Thus, he testified that his brother-in-law ‘kept after me to open the suitcase’ and told him, when he said he would ‘wait for the search warrant,’ that ‘they have got it.’ In addition, this is not a case in which defendant merely gave verbal consent to a search. Instead, defendant deliberately opened his suitcase, dumped out the contents and did so not only once, but twice.” (Emphasis in original.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“searches and seizures conducted without search warrants `are per se unreasonable,' subject to `a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions' * * *.”
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.