United States v. Conway’s Empirical Analysis
122 F.3d 841 · 1997
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably State v. Cowans (1999), Motley
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Ornelas v. United States · Whren v. United States · United States v. Watts · Griffin v. Wisconsin · In Re Atlantic Richfield Co. In Re Castillo Ponce and in Re Torres Herrera
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f there is reasonable cause to believe that an offender has violated a condition or requirement of the sentence”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because [the CCO] had reasonable grounds to suspect that Conway had violated the terms of his release, the search was valid under Washington law. It does not matter whether the community corrections officers believed they would find evidence of Conway's address or contraband when they opened the shoeboxes. Washington law does not require that the search be necessary to confirm the suspicion of impermissible activity, or that it cease once the suspicion has been confirmed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Parris · State v. Parris“A confidential informant told [officer] Turcin[, Conway’s parole officer,] that a man who met Conway’s description and who went by the name “Arab,” Conway’s known street moniker, often walked his dog at night outside the 1930 West College address. Turcin discovered independently that Conway had a dog. Police observed Conway leaving the 1930 West College home at 8:45 am. When Turcin told Conway that he wanted to go to 1930 West College, Conway said that “his” dog was there and would attack anyone who entered. At the residence, Conway opened the front door with his own keys. Turcin observed mail and notes addressed to Conway; Conway identified a bedroom in the house as “his,” and Turcin saw clothes in the bedroom that Conway had worn on visits to Turcin’s office.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.