30 Wash. App. 360 - State v. Jeter’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2007
22 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 54 Cal. 2d 846 - People v. Hammond · Gilbert v. United States · 95 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Coyle · United States v. McShane · 76 Wash. 2d 212 - State v. Young
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[T]he trial court's finding of exigent circumstances was based upon a belief that defendant could destroy the contraband and a concern for police safety based upon [the informant's] information that defendant kept a weapon. Neither provides a sufficient factual basis to rise to the level of exigent circumstances . . . [A] concern *Page 964 for police safety must be based upon prior knowledge or direct observation that the subject of the search keeps weapons and that such person has a known propensity to use them. Although the belief that defendant kept weapons is supported by police testimony at the omnibus hearing that [the informant] told them defendant kept a gun by his bed, police had no prior information that defendant had a known propensity to use the gun in resistance other than a general belief that a convicted felon may have such a propensity. Defendant, however, had no prior convictions for acts of violence or violence against law enforcement officers in particular."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A belief that contraband will be destroyed must be based upon sounds or activities observed at the scene or specific prior knowledge that a particular suspect has a propensity to destroy contraband. No blanket exception exists for narcotics cases, in spite of the relative ease of disposal of drugs. "”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McFall · Moore v. State“A concern for police safety must be based upon prior knowledge or direct observation that the subject of the search keeps weapons and that such person has a known propensity to use them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Anyan
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.