3 Md. App. 90 - Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently August 2004 · most notably United States v. Nerber (2000), State v. Bryant (1970)
3 federal appellate · 39 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Katz v. United States · Jones v. United States · Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States · Olmstead v. United States · Silverman 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.
“We believe that a person who enters an enclosed stall in a public toilet, with the door closed behind him, is entitled, at least, to the modicum of privacy its design affords, certainly to the extent that he will not be joined by an uninvited guest or spied upon by probing eyes in a head physically intruding into the area.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] person who enters an enclosed stall in a public toilet, with the door closed behind him, is entitled, at least, to the modicum of privacy its design affords, certainly to the extent that he will not he joined by an uninvited guest or spied upon by probing eyes in a head physically intruding into the area. No less than a person in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in an enclosed stall in a public toilet may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment. The nature of the place, the type of criminal activities that can and do occur in it, the ready availability therein of a receptacle for disposing of incriminating evidence and the right of the public to expect that police will put a stop to its use as a resort to crime are not sufficient to permit the search under the circumstances here present.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Orta“while the “trespass” doctrine may no longer be controlling so as to permit the admission of evidence on the ground that when it was obtained there was no physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area, we do not construe Katz as overruling the rule that evidence is inadmissible because obtained by a physical trespass or actual intrusion into a constitutionally protected area.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sampson 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.