Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 760 NW2D 22 - State v. Stephenson

State v. Stephenson’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Rakas v. Illinois · Minnesota v. Olson · Minnesota, v. Wayne Thomas Carter · State v. Othoudt · State v. Harris

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

  1. “In Byrd , the Court held that a defendant who had not signed a rental car agreement may still have a legitimate privacy expectation in the rental car to challenge its search. But in so holding, the Court explicitly left intact its conclusion from Rakas that a "car thief would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a stolen car," "[n]o matter the degree of possession and control." To explain the difference between the defendant in Byrd and a car thief, the Court likened a car thief to Rakas 's hypothetical "burglar plying his trade in a summer cabin during the off season," thus reaffirming Rakas 's teaching that, like a defendant who may not challenge a search of stolen property, a defendant whose presence on a premises violates the law may not "object to the legality of [the premises'] search." Like a burglar, trespasser, or squatter, an individual violating a court no-contact order is on property that the law prevents him from entering. We therefore hold that such an individual lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy in that place and may not challenge its search on Fourth Amendment grounds.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It is simply nonsense to say that society is prepared to recognize his right to be where society by the process of the law has ordered him not to be. . . . What deprives this defendant of a reasonable expectation of privacy is not his status as a law violator in general, but the fact that he was under a specific and valid legal order not to be in this particular place.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[I]f appellant had a subjective expectation of privacy in his home it is unlikely he would have hidden in the bathroom when [an officer] knocked on the door to gain entry to the residence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.