Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 904 P.2d 209 - State v. Covington

State v. Covington’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
4
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2018

5 state decisions

30199520002010decided

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 Ybarra v. Illinois · State v. Sery · State v. De Simone · Commonwealth v. Smith · Burkett v. Schwendiman

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. “[S]everal facts are of particular relevance: the premises or area to be searched are small, confined and private; the nature of the criminal activity is such that the participants (in general) constantly shift or change so that it is, practically, impossible for the police to predict that any specific person or persons will be on the premises at any given time; and the items specifically described in the warrant as the target of the search are of a size or kind which renders them easily and likely to be concealed on the person.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]ith regard to the Fourth Amendment demand for specificity as to the subject to be searched, there is none of the vice of a general warrant if the individual is thus identified by physical nexus to the ongoing criminal event itself. In such a setting, the officer executing the warrant has neither the authority nor the opportunity to search everywhere for anyone violating a law. So long as there is good reason to suspect or believe that anyone present at the anticipated scene will probably be a participant, presence becomes the descriptive fact satisfying the aim of the Fourth Amendment. The evil of the general warrant is thereby negated.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The question remains whether a warrant that authorizes the search of unnamed persons present at a location is lawful if it is supported by probable cause to believe that all persons in the place at the time of the search will be involved in the criminal activity upon which the warrant issued.... [And w]hether, based on the affidavit upon which the search warrant issued, the authorities had probable cause to believe that any person found at the basement apartment would be involved in narcotics trafficking.”
    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.