United States v. Bach’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.3d 1063 · 2002
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 3105
Relies on Wilson v. Layne · Smith v. Maryland · Ohio v. Robinette · Wilson v. Arkansas · Demos v. Supreme Court of Washington
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]ederal courts in a federal prosecution do not suppress evidence that is seized by state officers in violation of state law, so long as the search complied with the Fourth Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“no warrant was physically `served,' no persons or premises were searched in the traditional sense, and there was no confrontation between Yahoo! technicians and Bach.”
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.