State v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 48 state decisions

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The Kansas Legislature has not authorized suspicionless searches of probationers and parolees. Kansas' procedures for parole supervision specifically inform parolees that they have an expectation that searches will not be conducted unless an officer has a (reasonable) suspicion that such a search is necessary to enforce the conditions of parole. Put another way, parolees in Kansas have an expectation that they will not be subjected to suspicionless searches. It logically follows from this conclusion that because probationers have a greater expectation of privacy than parolees, searches of probationers in Kansas must also be based on a reasonable suspicion. Thus, the condition of Bennett's probation subjecting him to random, nonconsensual, suspicionless searches violates his rights under the Fourth Amendment and the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights." 288 Kan. at 98 , 200 P.3d 455 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of Tennessee v. Janet Michelle Stanfield, Tony Alan Winsett and Justin Bradley Stanfield · State v. Hinnenkamp

2. “'adjudicate[s] those rights in such manner that the determination will be operative, final, and conclusive.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Roat · 57 Kan. App. 2d 860 - Burch v. Howard

3. ““The United States Supreme Court has explained that a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy depend on the level of freedom that person enjoys in society. Persons under state control—such as probationers, parolees, and prisoners—exist on a "’continuum” of state-imposed punishments’ and thus enjoy more limited privacy than do free citizens. Samson v. California, 547 U.S. at 850. The Court has found that incarcerated prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy and can be searched at any time for any reason. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 , 104 S. Ct. 3194 , 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984). Parolees have some expectation of privacy, although that expectation is greatly diminished.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Toliver