Titus v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[N]o one testified that the absence of locked doors at the entrances was intended as an invitation to the public to enter at will.... .... ... The absence of locks or even doors on the entrances does not change the character of the building from a residence.... The privacy of residential premises does not arise from the nature of the security devices employed to keep unwanted intruders out. Rather, it derives from the very nature of the use as a residence— whether the occupants be one or many, related or unrelated. The security of locks and doors may be vital in a society where thugs and thieves prey on the unwitting and unable, but the importance of such security devices for personal safety hardly makes them a constitutional necessity for purposes of search and seizure. Locks may undeniably evidence an expectation of privacy in another place where the expectation of privacy may fairly and reasonably be open to question, but their lack does not erode the high protection our Constitution affords to those special places in which people reside. .... It is also indisputable that, even if this rooming house lacked doors and locks, it was clearly surrounded by a fence. That some people were allowed to come inside the fence and into the kitchen does not eliminate the fact of the fence. The evidence was uncontradicted that the house was for the tenants only and those guests that they either invited or suffered. No consent for the state to enter at will can be drawn from the mere fact”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 707 So. 2d 706 - State v. Titus

2. “The residents testified that the house is, effectually, private for the tenants and their guests, and that the kitchen is available for use only by the tenants. In fact, some of the tenants store personal belongings in the kitchen.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 46 Va. App. 213 - Logan v. Commonwealth

3. “seem[ing] to stand for the proposition that in an apartment building a tenant's expectation of privacy in the common areas turns on how secure the entrance to the building is.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 707 So. 2d 706 - State v. Titus