39 Md. App. 527 - Shingleton v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 1994 · most notably 101 Md. App. 1 - Wieland v. State (1994), United States v. Ross (1981)
5 federal appellate · 27 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2512 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 42 U.S.C. § 3781
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Carroll v. United States · Chimel v. California · Stovall v. Denno · Coolidge v. New Hampshire
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the van was stopped by the police, the occupants were removed from the vehicle and placed under arrest. A quick warrantless search was conducted on the spot. The State Police discovered the briefcase and opened it. As we read Chadwick, the contents of the brief case were protected by the cloak of the Fourth Amendment. Plainly, a briefcase is more like luggage, about which Chadwick holds that one has a right of expectation of privacy, than like a motor vehicle, a highly mobile object, usually open to view and in which one may reasonably expect less privacy. Moreover, there is no testimony of any emergency requiring the warrantless search of the briefcase. The officers did not express any fear or apprehension over weapons or explosives. The only remaining justification for the intrusion into the briefcase was the possibility that the contents would be destroyed by the two (2) appellants who were arrested at the scene. Those two (2), Martin and Shingleton, were in custody and, inferentially, unable or incapable of destroying the briefcase’s contents. The sum and substance of the facts being that, in this case, no justification existed for the warrantless search of the briefcase. Chadwick v. United States, supra; Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364 , 84 S. Ct. 881 , 11 L. Ed. 2d 777 (1964). We are mindful of a number of cases seeming to justify such a search as that present in this matter on the theorem of search incident to an arrest. Cady v. Dumbrowski, 413 U.S. 433 , 9”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Daigger v. State“"Although Chadwick was handed down subsequent to the trial of the case sub judice, we believe its decision, reaffirming established standards of search and seizure, may be viewed retroactively in accordance with the considerations set forth in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297 , 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1970 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1203 (1967): 'The criteria guiding resolution of the question implicate (a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new standards.’ See Rassmussen v. State, 18 Md. App. 443, 448-50 , 306 A.2d 577, 580 (1973); Scott v. State, 7 Md. App. 505, 516-18 , 256 A.2d 384, 391-92 (1969).””
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.