Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 90 CALAPP3D 505 - People v. Arno

People v. Arno’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
5
states following
April 2015
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably United States v. Taborda (1980), 31 Cal. 3d 335 - People v. Mayberry (1982)

6 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

36019791980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Katz v. United States · Ginsberg v. New York · 13 Cal. 3d 757 - White v. Davis · Fullbright v. United States

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

  1. “... if the purpose of the optically aided view is to permit clandestine police surveillance of that which could be seen from a more obvious vantage point without the optical aid, there is no unconstitutional intrusion; and ... if the purpose of the optical aid is to view that which could not be seen without it, there is.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “If government agents are required to obtain a warrant before listening with a sophisticated monitoring device, one would suppose that the same requirement should apply to watching with a sophisticated telescope. . . . This court reads the Katz case to mean, as a minimum, that the people may demand privacy unless a policeman can see or bear them from a place accessible to those members of the public not preternaturally inquisitive. . . . That this is the purport of the opinion seems clear from the fact that it excludes from the protection of the Fourth Amendment only what “a person knowingly exposes to the public.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.