Commonwealth v. Augustine’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 57 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Teague v. Lane · Griffith v. Kentucky · Hoffa v. United States · Smith v. Maryland
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when the government's conduct intrudes on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the search,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Location information gleaned from a [cellular telephone] provider can reveal not just where people go—which doctors, religious services, and stores they visit—but also the people and groups they choose to affiliate with and when they actually do so. That information cuts across a broad range of personal ties with family, friends, political groups, health care providers, and others ... In other words, details about the location of a [cellular telephone] can provide an intimate picture of one’s daily life. (Citations omitted.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.