Carter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Everhart v. State (1975), State v. Breest (1976)
44 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. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Johnson v. United States
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““compel the conclusion that if data set forth as a basis for the existence of probable cause in an application for a search warrant, was come upon or derived as a result of an illegal search and seizure, such primary illegality — in the absence of evidence of attenuation or a source independent of such ‘taint’ — precludes the use of such derivative evidence from being a valid basis for establishing the existence of probable cause, under the doctrine of the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the police make an unwarranted search of a house and seize tangible property belonging to third parties — even a transcript of a third-party conversation — the homeowner may object to its use against him, not because he had any interest in the seized items as ‘effects’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, but because they were the fruits of an unauthorized search of his house, which is itself expressly protected by the Fourth Amendment. Nothing seen or found on the premises may legally form the basis for an arrest or search warrant or for testimony at the homeowner’s trial, since the prosecution would be using the fruits of a Fourth Amendment violation. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385 (1920); Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10 (1948); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963).” (Emphasis supplied.) 394 U. S. at 176-77 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Everhart v. State““Whenever any wire or communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.