Barrientes v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. ““Of the first ground, it suffices, we think, to say that: the section invoked by defendant does not provide, the cases cited by defendant do not hold, and wre have found none holding, that the use of excessive force in serving a search warrant, such as is claimed was used in this case, will invalidate a search and seizure made under it; and that, while the use of excessive, that is unnecessary, force is in any case to be deprecated, evidence obtained under a valid warrant is not thereby made inadmissible.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 265 F. Supp. 15 - United States v. Cruz

2. ““The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in tiie execution of the warrant.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Freeman

3. ““The ground of the first claim is that the officers who seized the narcotics under a search warrant did not serve it in accordance with, but in violation of, Section 3109,' Title 18 U.S.C., in that, though they were not refused admittance, they nevertheless broke in the door and entered by force * *.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 265 F. Supp. 15 - United States v. Cruz