334 So. 2d 577 - Croteau v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Grubbs v. State (1979), 355 So. 2d 180 - Taylor v. State (1978)
33 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 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Austin v. New Hampshire · 288 So. 2d 490 - Bernhardt v. State · Brill v. State · United States v. Hill
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... that one facing trial for a new and discrete criminal offense ... [as Bruno and Eller were in the instant case] be given the full protection of the Fourth Amendment and the corollary means by which the search and seizure principle is vindicated... . In short, we conclude that a probation officer has authority to enter upon the living quarters of his probationer to observe his life-style and any material evidence thereby discovered is admissible in proceedings for revocation of probation, but this does not validate an otherwise unreasonable search for contraband resulting in prosecution for a separate criminal offense."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State ex rel. R. H. · State v. Yule“[W]hile evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may be admissible against the probationer at a revocation hearing, such evidence cannot constitutionally be admitted at a criminal trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The majority holds the search by a supervising probation officer is unreasonable to the extent it is used to charge a new criminal offense but reasonable when used to revoke probation. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to prevent illegal conduct by law enforcement officers. I fail to see the logic in the view expressed by the majority. What is legal and proper to revoke probation should also be legal to charge a new criminal offense. The trial court's denial of the motion to suppress was correct, and its decision should be affirmed. 334 So.2d at 581”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.