Roman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably State v. Smith (1988), Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety (1991)
3 federal appellate · 73 state decisions — followed in 14 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3651
Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Morrissey v. Brewer · Bumper v. North Carolina · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy · Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“reasonably related to the rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of the public and must not be unduly restrictive of liberty.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“Roman was convicted of possession of heroin. The right to request specimens for urinalysis and to search him and his quarters at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner to assure that he would not continue to possess illegal drugs is necessary to the proper functioning of the parole system. The right to perform such searches is limited to parole officers and peace officers acting under their direction. It would appear that all of these conditions were met in the search of Mr. Roman; therefore, we can-riot find that the parole authorities were clearly mistaken in authorizing the search and in conducting it under these circumstances. Roman’s inability to furnish a specimen for urinalysis prevented use of that means of ascertaining whether he was using drugs; and, in view of his imminent departure, it was reasonable to search his person at that time. 11 (footnotes omitted)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gonzales v. State · Brown v. State“(iJn the future, we believe that [any] conditions of parole authorizing searches should be specified by the Parole Board and [should] not [be] left to the discretion of individual parole officers.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Young v. State · Reichel 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.