United States v. Chaar’s Empirical Analysis
137 F.3d 359 · 1998
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 2017
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2342
Relies on United States v. Leon · Johnson v. United States · Horton v. California · Conway v. Statesman Mortgage Co. · Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[S]uppression is an appropriate remedy only when the violation is either of constitutional dimensions ( i.e. the search became constitutionally unreasonable), is prejudicial, or is intentional.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the admission of evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently held to be defective. [Leon] noted four specific situations where the good faith reliance exception would not apply: (1) where the supporting affidavit contained knowing or reckless falsity; (2) where the issuing magistrate failed to act in a neutral and detached fashion, and served merely as a rubber stamp for the police; (8) where the supporting affidavit did not provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause, or in other words, where the warrant application was supported by [nothing] more than a 'bare bones' affidavit; and (4) where the officer's reliance on the warrant was neither in good faith nor objectively reasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the only evidence of the conversation presented to the district court at the suppres-gion hearing was the affidavit of the affiant, executed nineteen months after the issuance of the warrant”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.