Divello v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “if police utilize 'normal means of access to and egress from the house' for some legitimate purpose, such as to make inquiries of the occupant ... it is not a Fourth Amendment search for the police to see or hear or smell from that vantage point what is happening inside the dwelling.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Holder v. State · Kendall v. State

2. “First, after there was no response from any occupant of the [second] property, they were no longer there for a legitimate investigatory purpose and should have left. Second, when Deputy Rosen-barger walked around the truck and within four feet of the house, he was clearly no longer in a place where visitors could be expected to go; he had invaded the curtilage of Divello's property. Divello had a reasonable expectation of privacy in this area, and therefore, Deputy Rosenbarger's actions violated the Fourth Amendment.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Holder v. State · Hardister v. State

3. “necessarily include consideration of the features of the property itself, such as the existence of walkways and fences or other obstructions to access or viewing, the location of primary residential entryways, as well as the nature or purpose for the visitor's call.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kendall v. State · Robert Trimble v. State of Indiana