Bone v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A search or seizure by a private party does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.” U.S. v. Shahid, 117 F.3d 322, 325 (7th Cir.1997), cert. denied. 522 U.S. 902 , 118 S.Ct. 254 , 139 L.Ed.2d 182 . “However, the Fourth Amendment does apply to a search or seizure by a party (even if otherwise a private party) who is acting as an ‘instrument or agent’ of the government.” Id. (citations omitted). Two “critical factors” in the “instrument or agent” analysis are (1) whether the government knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct, and (2) whether the private party’s purpose in conducting the search was to assist law enforcement agents or to further its own ends. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Everett Sweet v. State of Indiana

2. “the authentication requirement [of Indiana Evidence Rule 901(a) ] is satisfied by a showing that the images contained in the exhibits were recovered from [the defendant's] computer.”

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

3. “testimony before the trial court ... sufficient to establish the authenticity of the exhibits as depicting the images contained in [the defendant's] computer equipment,”

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