Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 566 FSUPP2D 862 - Doe v. Prosecutor, Marion County, Ind.

Doe v. Prosecutor, Marion County, Ind.’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

1 district · 4 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3122 (§ 301 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2202

Relies on Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Califano v. Sanders

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “As heinous as sex and violent crimes are, many other crimes are also threats to our Nation. The social contract reflected in our Constitution imposes limits on law enforcement to protect liberty and privacy. Americans invest a significant portion of public resources to promote social peace and safety. But our founders drew a clear line, based on observed and experienced abuses, on the government’s ability to invade fundamentally personal areas. To enter the homes of or to search the personal effects, papers, and bodies of persons in the general population, public officials must have cause to believe that they will find evidence of a crime. It is almost always possible to characterize the Fourth Amendment as an inconvenience to law enforcement officials as they carry out their vital duties. That inconvenience, however, is one of the fundamental protections that separates the United States of America from totalitarian regimes. The right to feel safe and secure in one’s own home, person, and belongings is central to our way of life.”
    1 later decision 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.