277 N.J. Super. 113 - State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
December 1995
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Payton v. New York · Welsh v. Wisconsin · United States v. Santana
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.
“Not knowing the nature of the warrant, in our view, places the pursuing officer in the same situation as in Bolte . The presumption must be that the warrant is for a minor offense in the absence of evidence to the contrary. To reach any other conclusion would be to allow the police to circumvent the constitutional sensitivity toward the sanctity of private dwellings by simply choosing not to ascertain the nature of an outstanding warrant. Requiring that the police make such an inquiry prior to invading a private home is an essential safeguard. [Ibid.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Jones“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [U.S. Const amend. IV (emphasis added).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Jones
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.