State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably State v. Schwartz (1989), State v. Leake (2005)
28 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 Whalen v. Roe · United States v. Miller · Duvall v. United States · State v. Swain · State v. Wiley
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If there was a violation of the statute in this case, it was a technical violation which did not subvert the basic purpose of the statute. There can be little doubt that a court order would have been issued on request. It is also clear that the disclosure did not violate any of defendant’s constitutional rights so as to require suppression of the fruits of the search and arrest. Any constitutional right that a person has to informational privacy clearly does not extend to his address.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mike · State v. Chryst“Admittedly it cannot be said that all information about a person is private in the Fourth Amendment sense. Katz instructs that “[wjhat a person knowingly exposes to the public * * * is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection,” and certainly some of the information which institutions collect in the course of business transactions fits that description. For example, if law enforcement agents were allowed to consult business records which merely revealed a person’s name or address or telephone number, this does not offend any interests protected by the Fourth Amendment. But bank records are another matter, for unquestionably they “can reveal much about a person’s activities, associations, and beliefs.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Chryst“The main protection offered a welfare recipient by the prohibition on unauthorized disclosure of private data on him, including his address, is the protection from disclosure of information identifying him as a recipient and information which the recipient has a legitimate interest in keeping private. Here, the information was not used by the police to disclose defendant’s welfare status to the public but only to establish that defendant was living in a hotel room they wanted to search.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Chryst
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.