Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 35 F.3d 680 - Ayeni v. Mottola

Ayeni v. Mottola’s Empirical Analysis

35 F.3d 680 · 1994

Citation profile

106
cited by 106 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 106 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably Wilson v. Layne (1999), Zahra v. Town of Southold (1995)

45 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions

6701994200020102020decided

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. § 3105 · 18 U.S.C. § 3109 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Katz v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · Graham v. Connor · Mapp v. Ohio

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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “long been established that the objectives of the Fourth Amendment are to preserve the right of privacy to the maximum extent consistent with reasonable exercise of law enforcement duties and that, in the normal situations where warrants are required, law enforcement officers’ invasion of the privacy of a home must be grounded on either the express terms of a warrant or the implied authority to take reasonable law enforcement actions related to the execution of the warrant. [The defendant officer] exceeded well-established principles when he brought into the Ayeni home persons who were neither authorized by the warrant to be there nor serving any legitimate law enforcement purpose by being there.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “that inviting a television crew--or any third party not providing assistance to law enforcement--to participate in a search was [not] in accordance with Fourth Amendment requirements.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “It has long been established that the objectives of the Fourth Amendment are to preserve the right of privacy to the maximum extent consistent with reasonable exercise of law enforcement duties and that ... law enforcement officers’ invasion of the privacy of a home must be grounded on either the express terms of a warrant or the implied authority to take reasonable law enforcement actions.... The unreasonableness of Mottola’s conduct in Fourth Amendment terms is heightened by the fact that, not only was it wholly lacking in justification based on the legitimate needs of law enforcement, but it was calculated to inflict injury on the very value that the Fourth Amendment seeks to protect — the right of privacy. The purpose of bringing the ... camera crew into the Ayeni’s home was to permit public broadcast of their private premises and thus to magnify needlessly the impairment of their right of privacy.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.