In Re RH’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
4
states following
July 2014
most recently cited
1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Schmerber v. State of California · United States v. Sokolow · Dunaway v. New York · Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is arguable, however, that, because of the unique nature of the fingerprinting process, such detentions might, under narrowly defined circumstances, be found to comply with the Fourth Amendment even though there is no probable cause in the traditional sense. Detention for fingerprinting may constitute a much less serious intrusion upon personal security than other types of police searches and detentions. Fingerprinting involves none of the probing into an individual's private life and thoughts that marks an interrogation or search. Nor can fingerprint detention be employed repeatedly to harass an individual, since the police need only one set of each person's prints. Furthermore, fingerprinting is an inherently more reliable and effective crime-solving tool than eyewitness identifications or confessions and is not subject to such abuses as the improper line-up and the "third degree." Finally, because there is no danger of destruction of fingerprints, the limited detention need not come unexpectedly or at an inconvenient time. For this same reason, the general requirement that the authorization of a judicial officer be obtained in advance of detention would seem not to admit of any exception in the fingerprinting context.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“essentially identical to that established in Terry v. Ohio . " In re Nontestimonial Identification Order Directed to R.H., 762 A.2d 1239 , 1242 (Vt.2000); see also State v. Farrell, 242 N.W.2d 327, 329 (Iowa 1976) (characterizing Terry standard as "reasonable grounds to suspect”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In re Nontestimonial Identification Order Directed to R.H., 762 A.2d 1239 , 1242 (Vt.2000); see also State v. Farrell, 242 N.W.2d 327, 329 (Iowa 1976) (characterizing Terry standard as”
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.