Rush v. Obledo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] statute authorizing warrantless searches which applies only to a single pervasively regulated industry, where urgent governmental interests are furthered by such regulatory inspections, does not violate the Fourth Amendment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Av Costantini v. Medical Board of California E P · Costantini v. Medical Bd. of California

2. “in [ ] situations of “special need,” where the privacy interests of the owner are weakened and the government interests in regulating particular businesses are concomitantly heightened, a warrantless inspection of commercial premises may well be reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This warrantless inspection, however, even in the context of a pervasively regulated business, will be deemed to be reasonable only so long as three criteria are met. First, there must be a “substantial” government interest that informs the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection is made. Second, the warrantless inspections must be “necessary to further [the] regulatory scheme.” ... Finally, “the statute’s inspection program, in terms of the certainty and regularity of its application, [must] pro-vid[e] a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant.” In other words, the regulatory statute must perform the two basic functions of a warrant: it must advise the owner of the commercial premises that the search is being made pursuant to the law and has a properly defined scope, and it must limit the discretion of the inspecting officers. To perform this first function, the statute must be “sufficiently comprehensive and defined that the owner of commercial property cannot help but be aware that his property will be subject to periodic inspections undertaken for specific purposes.” In addition, in defining how a statute limits the discretion of the inspectors, we have o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 118 F. Supp. 2d 1037 - Golden Day Schools, Inc. v. Pirillo

3. “Recognizing the magnitude of abuses in child day care facilities susceptible to easy concealment, such as over-capacity, lack of supervision, accessibility to poisonous chemicals or firearms, open pools, hazardous stairwells, and sexual or physical abuse, the Legislature could reasonably determine that a system of warrantless inspection is necessary in this case.... Recognizing the states’ vital interest in protecting children in family day care homes, we ... “defer to this legislative determination” of the necessity of unannounced inspection, since a warrant requirement could impede the “ ‘specific enforcement needs’ ” of the statutes and regulations governing family day care.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 118 F. Supp. 2d 1037 - Golden Day Schools, Inc. v. Pirillo