Stackhouse v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Oken v. State (1992), McMillian v. State (1992)
54 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 Carroll v. United States · Chimel v. California · Payton v. New York · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Schmerber v. State of California
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Upholding warrantless searches based upon exigent circumstances involves two principal categories of cases: ‘hot pursuit,’ and destruction or removal of evidence. [ ] Where a warrantless search is based upon the destruction or removal of evidence the surrounding circumstances must present a specific threat to known evidence. For example, in Thomas v. Parett, [ 524 F.2d 779, 782 (8th Cir.1975)], the police knew that narcotics were on the premises and that several people were present. The police could not risk arresting people as they left separately.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. And the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must, of course, be governed by a like rule. A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. There is ample justification, therefore, for a search of the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’— construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ricks v. State“the burden of establishing exigent circumstances is on the State, and ... the facts and circumstances upon which the question of reasonableness depends must be viewed in the light of established fourth amendment principles.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.