Commonwealth v. Blood’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 93 state decisions

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

1. “[I]n circumstances not disclosing any speaker’s intent to cast words beyond a narrow compass of known listeners, we conclude that it is objectively reasonable to expect that conversational interchange in a private home will not be invaded surreptitiously by warrantless electronic transmission or recording. The remaining question is whether “one party consent” so alters the balance as to obviate the need for a warrant requirement. It does not. Such consent only affords the State a person willing to transport the invisible instruments of eavesdropping into “earshot.” ... [T]he consent exception puts the conversational liberty of every person in the hands of any officer lucky enough to find a consenting informant. ... [T]he Commonwealth relies ... on [several] arguments. None is persuasive. The first of these arguments asserts, according to the Commonwealth, that because the person subject to the warrant-less interception is a “wrongdoer,” [he] should be made to bear the risk of betrayal. This argument proceeds from a pernicious assumption, that anyone subjected to surveillance by police is, because of that fact, necessarily a “wrongdoer.” It is the purpose of the warrant requirement ... to subject police suspicions to the scrutiny of a neutral and detached magistrate instead of [leaving them to be] judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Little would be left of anyone’s justifiable reliance on privacy ... if everyone must real i”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Almonor · Commonwealth v. Johnson

2. “Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures, of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities prescribed by the laws.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Jenkins v. CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE DISTRICT COURT DEPT.

3. “We consider whether society at large would think it reasonable for the defendants to expect that, in normal course, conversations held in private homes will not be broadcast and recorded surreptitiously. At common law “[i]t is certain every man has a right to keep his own sentiments, if he pleases. He has certainly a right to judge whether he will make them public, or commit them only to the sight of his friends. Yates, J., in Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303, 2379 (1769).” Warren & Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 , 198 n.2 (1890).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Blow