State v. Blake’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 371 Ill. App. 3d 517 - People v. Wear (2007), State v. Richard L. Weber (2016)
25 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 Payton v. New York · United States v. Watson · Welsh v. Wisconsin · United States v. Santana · Transamerican Press, Inc. v. Miller
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A warrantless in-home arrest is not valid without probable cause and exigent circumstances making it impractical to first procure an arrest warrant. Harrison v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 424 N.E.2d 1065 . Traditionally, exigent circumstance es have been found to exist when '(1) a suspect is fleeing or likely to take flight to escape arrest or ... (8) in cases involy- ing hot pursuit or moveable vehicles.' Pawloski v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 350 , 380 N.E.2d 1230, 1233 ; see United States v. Williams, (3rd Cir.1979) 612 F.2d 735 ." State v. Blake (1984), Ind.App., 468 N.E.2d 548, 551 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Miller v. State · Lepard v. State“[A] suspect may not defeat an arrest which has been set in motion in a public place ... by the expedient of escaping to a private place.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"[Where there is immediate or continuous pursuit from the scene of a misdemeanor crime to the door of the defendant's home a warrantless home arrest is permitted.... Such a result is mandated by necessity and good sense. Law enforcement is not a child's game of prisoners base, or a contest, with apprehension and conviction depending upon whether the officer or defendant is the fleetest of foot. A police officer in continuous pursuit of a perpetrator of a crime committed in the officer's presence, be it a felony or a misdemeanor, must be allowed to follow the suspect into a private place, or the suspect's home if he chooses to flee there, and effect the arrest without a warrant. A contrary rule would encourage flight to avoid apprehension and identification, even at dangerously high speeds as here, with the natural destruction of evidence accomplished while the officer interrupted his pursuit to obtain a warrant. Probable cause existed to believe [the defendant] was avoiding law enforcement, and immediate and continuous pursuit from the scene of the crime formed the exigent circumstance."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Miller v. State
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.