United States ex rel. Santos v. New York State Board of Parole’s Empirical Analysis
441 F.2d 1216 · 1971
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. M Scott (1998), Latta v. Fitzharris (1975)
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 16 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 McClain v. United States · United States of America Ex Rel. Herbert Sperling, Relator-Appellant v. Walter v. Fitzpatrick, Warden, West Street House of Detention · United States Ex Rel. Joseph Randazzo v. Harold W. Follette, Warden of Green Haven Prison, Stormville, New York · People v. Santos
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Without attempting to define precisely the extent of Fourth Amendment protection against searches and seizures which a parolee might have in the abstract, it is indisputable that the Fourth Amendment affords protection only against unreasonable searches. A search which would be unlawful if directed against an ordinary citizen may be proper if conducted against a parolee. United States ex rel. Randazzo v. Follette, 418 F.2d 1319, 1322, n. 7 (2nd Cir.1969). As Mr. Justice Steur stated in the Appellant Division's review of the present case: `* * * The very concept of parole entails a degree of supervision of parolees consonant with its purposes. Included within that supervision would be such searches as would reasonably be called for. It cannot be questioned that the parole officer had reasonable grounds for investigation as to whether the defendant here was violating his parole and that the search was a proper incident of that investigation. In that context, it was reasonable.'"”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The mere fact that [a] police officer was the first to suspect that [the parolee] was engaged in criminal activity and related this to the parole officer ... in no way alters the legality of the parole officer's presence [Le., search]. It does not require the suppression of the seized evidence from use in a subsequent eriminal prosecution."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]o hold that evidence obtained by a parole officer in the course of carrying out this duty cannot be utilized in a subsequent prosecution would unduly immunize parolees from conviction.”
2 later decisions 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.