Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 FAPPX 175 - Phillips v. Peddle

Phillips v. Peddle’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Payton v. New York · Malley v. Briggs · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons

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. “It is a well settled “principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches . . . inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 , 63 L. Ed. 2d 639 , 100 S. Ct. 1371 (1980). Here, the appellee argues that his entry into the house was justified under the “community caretaker” doctrine. The United States Supreme Court and this Court have both recognized that a police officer serving as a community caretaker to protect persons and property is constitutionally permitted to make searches and seizures without a warrant. See Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 , 37 L. Ed. 2d 706 , 93 S. Ct. 2523 (1973); United States v. Newbourn, 600 F.2d 452 (4th Cir. 1979). In Cady , the United State Supreme Court validated the warrantless entry and search of an automobile because the officers were engaged in a community caretaking function, and their actions were unrelated to “the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Cady, 413 U.S. at 441 . Most cases involving the community caretaker doctrine have involved its application to the search of an automobile, and the courts have distinguished searches of and entries into automobiles from those of private residences. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 49 L. Ed. 2d 1000 , 96 S. Ct. 3092 (1976); Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 , 93 L. Ed. 2d 739 , 107 S. Ct. 738 (1987). At least one other federal court of appeals has recogni”
    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.