Ex Parte Hilley’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably State v. Cheatam (2003), Washington v. State (2005)
74 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 Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · United States v. Matlock · United States v. Jacobsen · United States v. Martinez-Fuerte
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Mere antecedent contact between [the informant who performs a 'search'] and the police d[oes] not make [the informant] an agent of the police. United States v. Lambert , 771 F.2d 83 , 89 (6th Cir.) [, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1034 , 106 S.Ct. 598 , 88 L.Ed.2d 577 (1985)]; United States v. Coleman , 628 F.2d 961 , 965 (6th Cir. 1980). Rather, to make a person an agent of the police in this context, two facts must be shown. "First, the police must have instigated, encouraged, or participated in the search. Second, the individual must have engaged in the search with the intent of assisting the police in their investigation. Lambert , 771 F.2d at 89 ; [ United States v. ] Black , 767 F.2d [1334 ] at 1339 [(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1022 , 106 S.Ct. 574 , 88 L.Ed.2d 557 (1985)]; United States v. Howard , 752 F.2d 220 , 227 (6th Cir. 1985)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If one subjects his property to the exclusive or joint control of another, he assumes the risk that consent will be granted by the other to a search of the property.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The Fourth Amendment proscribes only governmental action and does not apply to a search or seizure — even an unreasonable one — conducted by a private individual, unless that person is acting as an agent of the government or with the participation or knowledge of a governmental official. United States v. Jacobsen , 466 U.S. 109 , 113 , 104 S.Ct. 1652 , 1656 , 80 L.Ed.2d 85 , 94 (1984); Burdeau v. McDowell , 256 U.S. 465 , 475 , 41 S.Ct. 574 , 576 , 65 L.Ed. 1048 , 1051 (1921). Even '[a] wrongful search or seizure conducted by a private person does not violate the Fourth Amendment.' United States v. Black , 767 F.2d 1334 , 1339 (9th Cir. 1985); Singleton v. State , 48 Ala. App. 157 , 160 , 262 So.2d 772 , 775 (1971), cert. denied , 288 Ala. 751 , 262 So.2d 776 (1972)."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Franks 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.