Louis D. Ponce v. Walter E. Craven, Warden’s Empirical Analysis
409 F.2d 621 · 1969
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 8 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Commonwealth v. Bradshaw (1982), United States v. Bustamante-Gamez (1973)
52 federal appellate · 8 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Katz v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Escobedo v. Illinois · Beck v. State of Ohio · Boyd v. United States
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he very nature of motel residency distinguishes the scope of that protection from that possessed by a person in his own house. As the court stated in Marullo v. United States, 328 F.2d 361, 363 (5 Cir. 1964): “A private home is quite different from a place of business or from a motel cabin. A home owner or tenant has the exclusive enjoyment' of his home, his garage, his barn or other buildings, and also the area under his home. But a transient occupant of a motel must share corridors, sidewalks, yards, and trees with the other occupants. Granted that a tenant has standing to protect the room he occupies, there is nevertheless an element of public or shared property in motel surroundings that is entirely lacking in the enjoyment of one’s home.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Ponce’s reliance on privacy in his motel room was not reasonable under the circumstances. If he did not wish to be observed, he could have drawn his blinds. The officers did not intrude upon any reasonable expectation of privacy in this case by observing with their eyes the activities visible through the window. [Citing many eases.]””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`The employment of a ruse which results in the occupant of a dwelling voluntarily opening the door and thereby allowing officers to enter without announcement of purpose, is not a breaking, and, therefore, not violative of California arrest law.' (See also People v. Coleman, 263 Cal. App.2d 697, 704 [ 69 Cal. Rptr. 910 ]; People v. Hamilton, 257 Cal. App.2d 296, 302 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 578 ]; People v. Brooks, 234 Cal. App.2d 662, 679 [ 44 Cal. Rptr. 661 ].)”
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.