Bower v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 104 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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An officer may seize evidence of a crime even though such property is not particularly described in the search warrant when the objects discovered and seized are reasonably related to the offense in question, when the officer at the time of the seizure has a reasonable basis for drawing a connection between the observed objects and the crime which furnished the basis for the search warrant, and the discovery of such property is made in the course of a good faith search conducted within the perimeters of the search warrant.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Morgan v. State · Rodgers v. State

2. “"Absent express orders from the person in possession against any possible trespass, there is no rule of private or public conduct which makes it illegal per se, or a condemned invasion of the person's right of privacy, for anyone openly and peaceably... to walk up the steps and knock on the front door of any man's "castle" with the honest intent of asking questions of the occupant thereof-whether the questioner be a pollster, a salesman, or an officer of the law."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cornealius v. State · Nored v. State

3. “Regarding the warrant requirement and when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, the court in Bower said: Since the decision in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), the following two-fold inquiry has been used to determine whether a search complies with the Fourth Amendment: (1) whether an individual, by his conduct, exhibits an actual, subjective expectation of privacy; and (2) whether that expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 , 104 S.Ct. 1735, 1740 , 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740-741 , 99 S.Ct. 2577, 2580-2581 , 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979). No single factor, however, determines whether an individual may legitimately claim, under the Fourth Amendment, that a place should be free from government intrusion not authorized by warrant. Oliver v. United States, [ 466 U.S. at 177 ], 104 S.Ct. at 1741 . The expectation of privacy test has, to an increasing extent, discarded fictional property concepts in resolving the issues of privacy and public security. Texas v. Gonzales, 388 F.2d 145, 148 (5th Cir.1968). Thus, the validity of a search does not turn on trespass law. Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967). To violate the Fourth Amendment, there must be an actual intrusion into a constitutionally protected area. The distinction between open field and curtilage is of assistance in det”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nored v. State