Willis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited
17 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Rakas v. Illinois · Steagald v. United States · Minnesota, v. Wayne Thomas Carter · Brown v. State · Mitchell v. State
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In determining whether a person's Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the 'definition of those rights is more properly placed within the purview of substantive Fourth Amendment law than within that of standing." Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 140 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected 'the rubric of "standing" doctrine' when analyzing Fourth Amendment rights and instead determined that 'a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable.' Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 87-88 , 119 S.Ct. 469 , 142 LEd.2d 373 (1998). On the other hand, analysis under the Indiana Constitution has retained a standing requirement in which 'a defendant must establish ownership, control, possession, or interest in either the premises searched or the property seized.' Peterson v. State, 674 N.E.2d 528, 534 (Ind.1996); see also Smith v. State, 744 N.B.2d 437, 440 (Ind.2001); Mays v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1263, 1267 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied. The state standing inquiry is in contrast to the federal analysis. Peterson, 674 N.E.2d at 534 n. 3." Id. at 427.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Edwards v. State“In determining whether a person's Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the 'definition of those rights is more properly placed within the purview of substantive Fourth Amendment law than within that of standing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Edwards v. State
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.