Barrett v. Kunzig’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 2006
6 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 Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Berman v. Parker · Adderley v. Florida · Utah Power Light Company v. United States No 202 United States · Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Once the United States had located offices and courts in its property and issued invitations for the public to enter, has it completely given up its right to protect itself, i.e., its property and employees? Stated in another way, may the government make the right of entry on its property conditional, i.e., on a casual visual inspection of packages, etc.? Reduced to an absurdity, is the United States helpless in protecting its property once it has been opened for the public use? [[Image here]] Because everyone carrying the enumerated parcels is required to have them inspected, the inspection is not accusatory in nature and the degree of insult to the entrant’s dignity is minimal. Thus it cannot be said that a finger of suspicion is unfairly or arbitrarily being pointed at an individual as falling within a ‘highly selective or inherently suspect’ group. See California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 , 91 S.Ct. 1535 , 29 L.Ed.2d 9 (1971). The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits ‘unreasonable searches.’ But does it prohibit the government from conducting in its buildings casual eye inspections of an individual entrant’s packages or briefcases to determine if guns or explosives are present? Can this inspection in light of the interest it seeks to protect be so offensive, or overly broad so as to offend the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment and constitute an ‘unreasonable’ search? This Court thinks not.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gibson v. State“Because everyone carrying the enumerated parcels is required to have them inspected, the inspection is not accusatory in nature and the degree of insult to the entrant's dignity is minimal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Cornwall
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.