No. 81-1596’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 7 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably 6 Cal. 4th 1212 - ALFREDO A. v. Superior Court (1994), Staats v. Brown (2000)
1 federal appellate · 7 district · 10 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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Bell v. Wolfish · Gerstein v. Pugh · Rizzo v. Goode · Frisbie v. Collins
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Until such an interpretation of the reasonableness requirement of the fourth amendment is adopted by the [United States Supreme] Court, we must assume that it applies alike to all criminal offenses— without regard to severity or permitted punishment — to allow reasonable custodial arrests as the traditional means for invoking the criminal process.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“administrative steps incident to a particular arrest will necessarily vary with geographical factors and with local police and court system practices as well as with innumerable factual exigencies.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a policeman's on-the-scene assessment of probable cause provides legal justification for arresting a person suspected of crime, and for a brief period of detention to take the administrative steps incident to arrest. Once the suspect is in custody, however, the reasons that justify dispensing with the magistrate's neutral judgment evaporate. There no longer is any danger that the suspect will escape or commit further crimes while the police submit their evidence to a magistrate. And, while the State's reasons for taking summary action subside, the suspect's need for a neutral determination of probable cause increases significantly. The consequences of prolonged detention may be more serious than the interference occasioned by arrest. Pretrial confinement may imperil the suspect's job, interrupt his source of income, and impair his family relationships. [Citations.] Even pretrial release may be accompanied by burdensome conditions that effect a significant restraint of liberty. [Citation.] When the stakes are this high, the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate is essential if the Fourth Amendment is to furnish meaningful protection from unfounded interference with liberty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.