Paulino v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Bible v. State (2009), Bailey v. State (2010)
56 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 Bell v. Wolfish · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Schmerber v. State of California · United States v. Robinson
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[d]uring the transportation of [Faith] from the scene of the arrest to the station or to a more private location, the police had the ability to secure”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“A “strip search,” though an umbrella term, generally refers to an inspection of a naked individual, without any scrutiny of the subject’s body cavities. A “visual body cavity search” extends to a visual inspection of the anal and genital areas. A “manual body cavity search” includes some degree of touching or probing of body cavities.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Bell [], the Supreme Court addressed the permissible scope of searches incident to arrest that occurred in associations with pretrial detention. [441 U.S.] at 523, 99 S.Ct. at 1866, 60 L.Ed.2d at 458 . Several defendants brought a class action suit challenging detention policies requiring pre-trial detainees to be subjected to a "visual body cavity” search every time the detainee had contact with individuals outside of the institution. Id. The Court assessed the reasonableness of these searches by stating: The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. In each case it requires a balancing of the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. Courts must consider the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted.”
2 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.