People v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 10 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Obviously, the government's interest in law enforcement is always, by definition, `substantial,' and tools such as unannounced general inspections, without judicial supervision or regulatory accountability, are always helpful in detecting and deterring crime. If these were the only criteria for determining when citizens' privacy rights may be curtailed there would thus be few, if any, situations in which the protections of [our state constitutional article on unreasonable search and seizure] would operate. Indeed, the very purpose of including such protections in our [c]onstitution was to provide a counterbalancing check on what may be done to individual citizens in the name of governmental goals. ... Our responsibility in the judicial branch is not to respond to these temporary crises or to shape the law so as to advance the goals of law enforcement, but rather to stand as a fixed citadel for constitutional rights, safeguarding them against those who would dismantle our system of ordered liberty in favor of a system of wee-kept order alone. As has recently been observed, the present crisis will, undoubtedly, abate but the precedents we create now will long endure.... [I]t suffices to observe, as Benjamin Franklin did some 200 years ago, that `those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Rechtenbach · 640 F. Supp. 2d 268 - 5 Borough Pawn, LLC v. City of New York

2. “Every person required to be registered pursuant to this section shall maintain a record of all motor vehicles, trailers, and major component parts thereof, coming into his possession together with a record of the disposition of any such motor vehicle, trailer or part thereof and shall maintain proof of ownership for any motor vehicle, trailer or major component part thereof while in his possession. Such records shall be maintained in a manner and form prescribed by the commissioner.... Upon request of an agent of the commissioner or of any police officer and during his regular and usual business hours, a vehicle dismantler shall produce such records and permit said agent or police officer to examine them and any vehicles or parts of vehicles which are subject to the record keeping requirements of this section and which are on the premises.... The failure to produce such records or to permit such inspection on the part of any person required to be registered pursuant to this section as required by this paragraph shall be a class A misdemeanor.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 640 F. Supp. 2d 268 - 5 Borough Pawn, LLC v. City of New York

3. “`administrative search' exception to the Fourth Amendment's probable cause and warrant requirement cannot be invoked where ... the search is `undertaken solely to uncover evidence of criminality' and the underlying regulatory scheme is `in reality, designed simply to give the police an expedient means of enforcing penal sanctions.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Rechtenbach