Schneider v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably Beed v. State (1980), 542 F. Supp. 345 - United States v. Dorfman (1982)
2 federal appellate · 30 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. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Franks v. Delaware · Stone v. Powell · United States v. Calandra · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United States v. Janis
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is true that the United States Supreme Court has not held the exclusionary rule to be applicable to probation revocation proceedings. The state also correctly points out that the court has shown a disinclination to extend the impact of the exclusionary rule. See, e.g., Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 , 96 S. Ct. 3037 , 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976); United States v.Janis, 428 U.S. 433 , 96 S. Ct. 3021 , 49 L. Ed. 2d 1046 (1976); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 , 94 S. Ct. 613 , 38 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1974). The great majority of jurisdictions that have considered the question have taken the view that evidence obtained as the result of an unreasonable search and seizure is admissible in a probation revocation hearing. See Annot. 77 ALR 3d 636 , 30 ALR Fed. 824. The refusal to apply the rule in cases where the search was conducted in a good-faith reliance upon a warrant later proven defective has some appeal as an accommodation of the societal interest in requiring strict compliance with conditions of probation with the deterrence of illegal police action. We have previously indicated that the exclusionary rule might not have full impact in these proceedings. Smith v. State, 241 Ark. 958 , 411 S.W. 2d 510 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harris v. State“On February 3, 1979 (today) I spoke with William Rhodes and Phillip Bruce. Attached is a statement signed by Rhodes and which he stated to Prosecuting Attorney Ron Fields under oath that all the facts contained therein were true. (See attached statement Appendix A). Also on this date Phillip Bruce called Schneider at 782-2459 and she stated that she had a quantity of marijuana that she would sell to him at 6:30 P.M. this date. This call was recorded and the tape is attached as appendix B. Bruce stated that the buy was to take place at her house (1800 S. 16th, Ft. Smith).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vanderpool v. State
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.