Reeves v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 52 state decisions

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

1. ““. . . a pre-incarceration inventory search is an exception to the warrant requirement, where it is conducted to further the governmental purposes recognized above and is limited to the extent necessary to respect Alaska’s constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. The search of an arrestee’s person should be no more intensive than reasonably necessary to prevent the entry of weapons, illegal drugs, and other contraband or other potentially dangerous items into the jail. Any items taken from the arrestee’s possession in this search may not be further searched or opened except pursuant to a search warrant or another recognized exception to the warrant requirement applicable in the circumstances. Finally, the inventory conducted shall consist of a cataloging of the arrestee’s property thus seized and may not, without a specific request from the arrestee, extend to a search and inventory of the contents of any object, closed or sealed container, luggage, briefcase or package. We believe that a pre-incarceration search thus limited both adequately protects the reasonable interests of the state and appropriately respects an arrestee’s reasonable expectation of privacy.” ( 599 P.2d at 737-738 . Emphasis added.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. D'ANTORIO v. State · State v. Lamere

2. ““As we have frequently noted, the Alaska constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is broader in scope than fourth amendment guarantees under the United States Constitution, at least in part because of the more extensive right of privacy guaranteed Alaskan citizens by article I, section 22 of our state constitution. Thus, it is within the framework of Alaska’s constitutional guarantees that we must analyze and delineate the permissible scope of pre-incarceration inventory searches in order to determine the validity of the search of Reeves’ person undertaken at the Anchorage jail following his arrest.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Pastos · State v. Malkin

3. “We are not prepared to say that an accused whose effects are held by the police for safekeeping has, by the single fact alone of the police custody of the property, surrendered his expectations of the privacy of those effects.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. D'ANTORIO v. State · State v. Cheatam