United States v. Eberle’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Franks v. Delaware · No. 98-5283 · Sherwood v. Mulvihill · United States v. Delfin-Colina · United States of America v. David Scott Zimmerman
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here, the evidence supports the District Court’s conclusion that Detective Lynn did not willfully or recklessly omit the challenged information. Detective Lynn testified that she omitted information about the prior warrant and search of the computer because she believed that the computer she had searched did not belong to the Eberles. She explained that when she ran a search for their names, she did not find any images or any information leading her to believe that the Eberles had ever used the computer, and that, because they had changed computers since 2001, they may have retained downloaded images on storage devices other than the computer’s hard drive. Based upon Detective Lynn’s testimony, the District Court concluded that she held a good faith belief that the computer did not belong to the Eberles, “given the computer’s apparent lack of connection” to them. Given this good faith belief, it does not follow that a reasonable person would know in March of 2005 that a search of a different computer more than six months earlier would be something a judge would want to know.”
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.