Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 F.3d 849 - United States v. Ramirez

United States v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis

112 F.3d 849 · 1997

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Ramirez v. United States (1997), Willie Jacobs and Linda Siller v. City of Chicago (2000)

15 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

1701997200020102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)

Relies on Horton v. California · Maryland v. Garrison · Collazo v. Estelle · United States v. Rodriguez · United States v. Anderson

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

  1. “The legislative history of Title III suggests, unsurprisingly, that “mobile interception device” was intended to carry a broader meaning than the literal one. This history de scribes the term as applicable “to both a listening device installed in a vehicle and to a tap placed on a cellular or other telephone instrument installed in a vehicle.” ... And a tap is not placed in the telephone handset itself; it is attached to the telephone line a some distance from the handset. The listening post in this case intercepted transmissions between microwave towers that relayed cellular phone calls, and so was analogous to a tap affixed to a telephone cable outside the subscriber’s premises. The emphasis in “mobile interception device” falls ... on the mobility of what is intercepted rather than on the irrelevant mobility or stationarity of the device.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “interception takes place both where the phone is located (including, we suppose, although we can find no cases, where the receiving phone is located) and where the scanner used to make the interception is located”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[O]nce [a] mistake is discovered, the government cannot use the authority of the warrant . . . to conduct a search . . . that they know is unsupported by probable cause.”
    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.