Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
2 district · 27 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Katz v. United States · United States v. Kahn · Bartnicki v. Vopper · Kushell v. Department of Natural Resources · Barbre v. Pope
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“words their natural and ordinary meaning,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(c) Issuance of order. — Upon the application the judge may enter an ex parte order ... authorizing interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications within the territorial jurisdiction permitted ... if the judge determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that: (i) There is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in [C.J.] § 10-406 of this subtitle; (ii) There is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through the interception; (iii) Normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous; and (iv) There is probable cause for belief: 1. That the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire, oral, or electronic communications are to be intercepted are being used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of the offense”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[M]ay authorize the interception of communications received or sent by á communication device' any Where within the- State so as to permit the interception of the communications regardless of whether the communication device is physically located within the jurisdiction of the, court in which the application was filed at the time of the interception. The application must allege that the offense being investigated may transpire in the jurisdiction of the court in which the application is filed. '”
1 later decision 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.