Ricks v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably United States v. Taketa (1991), Mustafa v. State (1991)
2 federal appellate · 74 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois · Jones v. United States · Rawlings v. Kentucky · Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Mjore than a subjective .expectation of not being discovered. A burglar plying his trade in a summer cabin during the off season may have a thoroughly justified subjective expectation of privacy, but it is not one which the law recognizes as “legitimate.” His presence ... is “wrongful;” his expectation is not “one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Whiting v. State · State v. Cheek“[Wjhile appellants’ counsel’s assertion that the appellants were “invitees” did not constitute evidence, it was confirmatory of the apparent earlier concession by the prosecutor that the appellants were in the apartment at the invitation of the lessee. Moreover, there was an indication ... that on several occasions ... appellant Ricks, used a key to gain entrance, either to the building in which the apartment was located, or into the apartment itself.... [M]ere presence in another’s apartment, without more, would not suffice to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy. More than mere presence, however, is arguably shown in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Whiting v. State“prohibited the interception and use of oral and wire communications unless obtained in strict conformity with the Act's provisions, which prescribed a uniform minimum national standard governing the interception and use of such communications in connection with a number of designated criminal offenses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis 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.