United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
170 F.3d 708 · 1999
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Cormier (2000), United States of America v. Clarence Richardson Jr (2000)
29 federal appellate · 20 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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. § 3731 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Illinois v. Gates · Payton v. New York · Ornelas v. United States · United States v. Cortez
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n a 'knock and talk,' the police approach a house or apartment in which they suspect drug dealing is occurring. They listen outside the door for a brief period of time, and then they knock on the door and attempt to persuade whoever answers -to give them permission to enter. If consent is forthcoming, they enter and interview the occupants of the place; if it is not, they try to see from their vantage point at the door whether drug paraphernalia or contraband is in plain view. If it is, then they malee a warrantless entry. As this description makes plain, the ‘knock and talk' procedure typically does not involve the prior issuance of a warrant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“we review de novo the ultimate conclusion that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop or search the individual, but we review all findings of historical fact and credibility determinations deferentially, under the clear error standard.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“we hold only that before a police officer targets a particular house and decides to seize literally anyone who might emerge from that house, he or she must either have a warrant or fall within one of the warrant exceptions that the Supreme Court has recognized.”
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.