Richards v. Wisconsin’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
390 federal appellate · 86 district · 596 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,384 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably Florida v. JL (2000), Hudson v. Michigan (2006)
390 federal appellate · 86 district · 596 state decisions — followed in 42 states
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 Terry v. Ohio · Ker v. State of California · Minnesota v. Dickerson · Michigan v. Summers · Maryland v. Buie
Cited together with Wilson v. Arkansas · United States v. Ramirez · United States v. Banks · United States v. Leon · Illinois v. Gates
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 1,384 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.”
134 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A number of States give magistrate judges the authority to issue "no-knock” warrants if the officers demonstrate ahead of time a reasonable suspicion that entry without prior announcement will be appropriate in a particular context. See, e.g., 725 Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §§ 5/108-8 (1992); Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 29-411 (1995); Okla. Stat., Tit. 22, §§ 1228 (Supp.1997); S.D. Codified Laws §§ 23A-35-9 (1988); Utah Code Ann. §§ 77-23-210 (1995). But see State v. Arce, 83 Or.App. 185 , 730 P.2d 1260 (1986) (magistrate has no authority to abrogate knock-and-announce requirement); State v. Bamber, 630 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 1994) (same). "The practice of allowing magistrates to issue no-knock warrants seems entirely reasonable when sufficient cause to do so can be demonstrated ahead of time. But, as the facts of this case demonstrate, a magistrate’s decision not to authorize a no-knock entry should not be interpreted to remove the officers’ authority to exercise independent judgment concerning the wisdom of a no-knock entry at the time the warrant is being executed.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he common law recognized that individuals should have an opportunity to themselves comply with the law and to avoid the destruction to property occasioned by a forcible entry. These interests are not inconsequential.”
6 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.