Gene Bartholomew v. Commonwealth Of Pa’s Empirical Analysis
221 F.3d 425 · 2000
Citation profile
41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
February 2018
most recently cited
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Johnson v. Jones
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.
“We now make clear ... and hold that, generally speaking, where the list of items to be seized does not appear on the face of the warrant, sealing that list, even though it is ‘incorporated’ in the warrant, would violate the Fourth Amendment.”). Here, the Applications and Affidavits indicate that they were filed under seal. Although the Witness Tampering Warrants, under”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that warrants must be particular, the narrower and more appropriate question, i.e. whether it was clearly established that one has a constitutional right to be free from a search pursuant to a warrant based upon a sealed list of items to be seized, has not heretofore been answered, at least in those terms. 78 Bartholomew v. Pennsylvania, 221 F.3d 425 , 429 (3d Cir.2000). 79 The Fifth Circuit reached the same conclusion in the context of affirming the denial of a motion to suppress. In United States v. Cherna, the court held that because it was”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[i]f the government wishes to keep an affidavit under seal” — in order to protect witnesses, for example — ’“it must list the items it seeks with particularity in the warrant itself. It is the government’s duty to serve the search warrant on the suspect, and the warrant must contain, either on its face or by attachment, a sufficiently particular description of what is to be seized.””
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.