Wanger v. Bonner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 federal appellate · 5 district · 10 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The fourth amendment protects the privacy and personal security of individuals from arbitrary and oppressive interference by limiting the search-and-seizure authority of law enforcement officials. The standard against which the fourth amendment requires that we judge the validity of a search or seizure is one of reasonableness in light of the totality of the circumstances. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109-110 , 98 S.Ct. 330, 332 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331, 335-336 (1977); United States v. Sink, 586 F.2d 1041, 1047 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 443 U.S. 912 , 99 S.Ct. 3102 , 61 L.Ed.2d 876 (1979). In determining the reasonableness of a particular law enforcement practice, a court must weigh the public interest promoted by the practice against its intrusion upon the personal rights of the individual protected by the fourth amendment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 558 , 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1884 , 60 L.Ed.2d 447, 481 (1979); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 , 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1396 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660, 667 (1979); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 553 , 96 S.Ct. 3074, 3081 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1116, 1125 (1976). Some of the factors that the court should consider are “the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it and the place in which it is conducted.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 559 , 99 S.Ct. at 1884 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Gardner

2. “Generally, the inclusion of the name of the person to be arrested on the arrest warrant constitutes a sufficient description to satisfy the fourth amendment requirement that the person to be seized be described with particularity. See Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 4(c). That general rule does not apply in this case. The inclusion of an address on a misdemeanor warrant will not suffice to allow a law enforcement officer to conduct a search of the premises located at that address in the middle of the night over the objection of the person residing therein, when that person establishes he is not the suspect named in the warrant, and the officer knows that in approximately twenty to twenty-five percent of some incidences, the warrant address is incorrect.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 538 F. Supp. 800 - Clark v. Heard

3. “An individual's privacy interests are nowhere more clearly defined or rigorously protected by the courts than in the home the core of fourth amendment rights.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Kornegay v. Cottingham