United States v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions

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

1. “There was no evidence introduced that indicated the officers believed Mr. Davis had a reputation for violence. Nor had he displayed a threatening or aggressive manner when he initially contacted the officers. It is true he lied about Ms. Coleman’s whereabouts, but any concern that lie might have effected was allayed when she appeared without any signs of harm. Moreover, the only manifestation of resistance displayed by Mr. Davis was his insistence upon keeping the officers outside. As the district court noted, even Ms. Coleman, “the suspected victim[,] was trying to prevent” the officers from entering Mr. Davis’ residence. United States v. Davis, No. 01^40036-01-RDR, 2001 WL 1013313 , at (D.Kan. Aug. 7, 2001). The court therefore logically concluded the officers “[ojbviously ... could [have] checkfed] her condition without entering the home.” Id. Moreover, as stated in Mr. Davis’ brief, “Parsons knew Davis had children, so his withdrawal from police presence should have been wholly unthreatening.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 744 F. Supp. 2d 1036 - Silva v. City of San Leandro · People v. Chavez

2. “grant[ ] unfettered permission to officers to enter homes, based only upon a general assumption domestic calls are always dangerous”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. French v. City of Casey · People v. Chavez

3. “(1) the officers must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect the lives or safety of themselves or others; (2) the search must not be motivated by an intent to arrest or seize evidence; and (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approaching probable cause, to associate the emergency with the place to be searched.”

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