39 Misc. 3d 603 - People v. Moorer’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2702 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3322 · 47 U.S.C. § 1002
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“pinged” the phone along the way to locate it and arrested the defendant, The federal appeals court found that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the GPS data and rejected his argument that the use of the,GPS location information emitted from his cell phone was a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment; Devega v. State of Georgia, 286 Ga. 448 , 689 S.E.2d 293 (2010), where Georgia's highest • court rejected a cjaim by the defendant that his attorney was ineffective for failing to challenge the war-rantless”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Isaac
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.