641 So. 2d 1283 - Draper v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 2016
7 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 Katz v. United States · Simmons v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois · Brewster v. Derwinski · Mancusi v. DeForte
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'When a motion to suppress evidence in a criminal case is based on the ground that the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, one issue is whether the movant has standing to assert the claim and to seek the remedy of exclusion. See LaFave, 4 Search and Seizure § 11.3 (2d ed. 1987). The rights afforded protection by the Fourth Amendment are personal rights. See Simmons v. United States , 390 U.S. 377 , 389 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1967). To show that a party has standing to object to a search, the party must have a possessory interest in the premises searched. Rakas v. Illinois , 439 U.S. 128 [132], 99 S.Ct. 421 , 425 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). . . . The " 'capacity to claim the protection of the [Fourth] Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether the area was one in which there was a reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.' " Mancusi v. DeForte , 392 U.S. 364 , 368 , 88 S.Ct. 2120 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1967), quoting Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 , 352 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). "A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.