State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Campos v. State (2008), 18 So. 3d 1016 - Jackson v. State (2009)
2 federal appellate · 34 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 · Hudson v. Palmer · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · Public Broadcasting Service v. Network Project · Darden v. Wainwright
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]or an oral conversation to be protected under section 934.03 the speaker must have an actual subjective expectation of privacy, along with a societal recognition that the expectation is reasonable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Had Smith been placed in the police car for custody purposes, our analysis would be quite simple. A prisoner’s right of privacy fails both prongs of the Katz test. First, a prisoner’s privacy interest is severely limited by the status of being a prisoner and by being in an area of confinement that “shares none of the attributes of privacy of a home, an automobile, an office, or a hotel room.” ... Second, “society would insist that the prisoner’s expectation of privacy always yield to what must be considered the paramount interest in institutional security.” ... Thus, “the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches does not apply within the confines of the prison cell.” ... Courts have also determined that a person in custody in the back of a police car has no right of privacy because that person is essentially a prisoner.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.