State v. Page’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 2012
7 state decisions
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 State v. Glass · Regina M. Muratore v. M/s Scotia Prince, Etc., Prince of Fundy Cruises, Ltd. · Cohen v. Herbal Concepts, Inc. · Stessman v. American Black Hawk Broadcasting Co. · 632 F. Supp. 1282 - Huskey v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under these sections of the state constitution, a person is protected from unreasonable government intrusion whenever (1) the person manifests a subjective expectation of privacy in the property or activity being subjected to government scrutiny, and (2) this expectation of privacy is one that society recognizes as reasonable. The first prong of this test (a person’s subjective expectation of privacy) presents a question of fact. However, the second prong (the reasonableness of any expectation of privacy) presents a legal question. The answer to this second prong of the test rests on constitutional intent and, ultimately, on a judgement concerning the proper balance to be struck between the rights of the individual and the authority society exercises over individuals through the agency of government.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cowles v. State“Page was engaged in a conversation which, the State concedes, was protected from warrantless monitoring under Glass . This conversation took place in a private apartment, a location where Page could reasonably expect that his activities would not be observed by anyone except those onlookers whose presence he was aware of. We hold that, in these circumstances, the Alaska Constitution as interpreted by the supreme court in Glass requires the police to secure a warrant before engaging in surreptitious videotaping of conversation. It makes no difference that the police turn down the audio recording level on their equipment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cowles v. State“into a place in which the plaintiff has secluded himself, as when the defendant forces his way into the plaintiffs room in a hotel or insists over the plaintiff’s objection in entering his home.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Greywolf v. Carroll
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.