Hinkel v. Anchorage’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably New York v. Belton (1981), Thornton v. United States (2004)
22 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 Chimel v. California · United States v. Rabinowitz · United States v. Chadwick · Weaver v. Graham · Wilson v. United States
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]ontainers found in clothing pockets may be searched. In our view ... containers such as purses which are often worn on the person and generally serve the same function as clothing pockets are also excepted from the strict exigency requirement. It would be possible, of course, to treat containers found in clothes pockets, such as billfolds, differently from items such as purses which are not carried in pockets but serve the same purpose. However, we can think of no reasons to justify such a distinction^[ 33 ]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ricks v. State · Dunn v. State“A container on the person of an arrestee at . the time of the arrest may be seized, opened, and searched as an incident to the arrest, ... unless the container is too small to contain a weapon and the arrest is for a crime, such as reckless driving, for which no evidence could exist in the container.... This is so even though it is not strictly necessary to operj a closed container found on the person of one who is arrested in order to protect the arrest ing officer from the use of a hidden weapon or to prevent the destruction of evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jackson v. State · Dunn v. State“immediately associated with the person of [Ricks] to [his] exclusive control”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ricks v. State · Crawford 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.