Commonwealth v. Fredericq’s Empirical Analysis
2019
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Leon · Brown v. Illinois · California v. Hodari D. · United States v. Janis
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is the Commonwealth's burden to establish that the evidence it has obtained and intends to use is sufficiently attenuated from the underlying illegality so as to be purged from its taint.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"[w]hen consent to search is obtained through exploitation of a prior illegality, particularly very close in time following the prior illegality, the consent has not been regarded as freely given. Evidence gathered in a search allowed by such a compromised consent has been thought to be tainted and inadmissible."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“entitled to suppress the fruits of that seizure even where the evidence was discovered in places where it is indisputable that the person in question did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
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.