Wagner v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Benavides v. State (1980), Wagner v. Higgins (1985)
2 federal appellate · 24 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 Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Chambers v. Maroney · South Dakota v. Opperman · Sedillo v. United States · Oregon v. Hass
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The more difficult question is the legality of a routine police inventory of a vehicle subsequent to a lawful impoundment. Mere legal custody of an automobile by law enforcement officials does not automatically create a right to rummage about its interior. A routine police inventory of the contents of an impounded vehicle constitutes a substantial invasion of the zone of privacy of its owner or permissive user. It is an invasion additional to the intrusion upon his privacy interests occasioned by the impoundment itself. Consequently, such an inventory is impermissible unless the owner or permissive user consents or substantial necessities grounded upon public safety justify the search. Wagner v. Commonwealth, 581 S.W.2d at 356-57 (footnote omitted). 1”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wagner v. Higgins“A vehicle may be impounded without a warrant in only four situations: 1) The owner or permissive user consents to the impoundment; 2) the vehicle, if not removed, constitutes a danger to other persons or property or the public safety and the owner or permissive user cannot reasonably arrange for alternate means of removal; 3) the police have probable cause to believe both that the vehicle constitutes an instrumentality or fruit of a crime, and that absent immediate impoundment the vehicle will be removed by a third party; or 4) the police have probable cause to believe both that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime and that absent immediate impoundment the evidence will be lost or destroyed. (Emphasis ours.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Wagner suddenly pulled out a knife and placed it at Amy’s throat. He told her “Don’t move or I’ll slit your throat.” She was surprised at this and jumped. The knife cut her finger. He tied her hands behind her back with a scarf which had been hanging from his rear view mirror. He took another scarf and tied one end around her throat and the other end to the scarf holding her hands. He told her not to struggle or she would choke herself to death. He made her lie down on the front seat of the car and as he kissed her he pulled up her shirt and placed the knife on her stomach indicating that it would be within easy reached [sic] if he needed it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wagner v. Higgins
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.