State v. Eis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 26 state decisions

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.

1. “No principled basis exists for distinguishing between the privacy rights of passengers and drivers in a moving vehicle. When the vehicle is stopped they are equally seized; their freedom of movement is equally affected. . . .occupants of motor vehicles, whether drivers or passengers, ordinarily have a legitimate expectation of privacy which is invaded when the vehicle is stopped by the government.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 185 Cal. App. 3d 1346 - People v. Lionberger · 206 Wis. 2d 243 - State v. Harris

2. “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Losee · 139 Wis. 2d 663 - State v. Guzy

3. “The Supreme Court decision in Rakas [v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S. Ct. 421 , 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978)] does not answer the [standing] question because that case involved a challenge to the searching rather than the stopping of a vehicle. The legality of the stop was not an issue. . . . General principles governing the rights of vehicle occupants to challenge stops were discussed in the Court’s later decision in Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 , 99 S.Ct. 1391 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). This court reviewed and applied the Prouse principles in State v. Hilleshiem, 291 N.W.2d 314, 316-19 (Iowa 1980). As we noted in Hilleshiem , one of the principles recognized in Prouse is that the stopping of a vehicle is a seizure of its occupants within the meaning of the fourth amendment. . . . The vehicle occupants have a protected privacy interest in freedom of movement that is invaded when the vehicle is stopped____The Supreme Court made no distinction in Prouse between the rights of passengers and those of drivers. The accused in that case may have been a passenger. See 440 U.S. at 650 n. 1, 99 S.Ct. at 1394, n. 1, 59 L.Ed.2d at 665 . The accused persons in Hilleshiem included both drivers and passengers.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Harms