United States v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis
321 F.2d 704 · 1963
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably United States v. Pena (1992), Lathers v. United States (1968)
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 7607
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Jones v. United States · Draper v. United States
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The test of probable cause is designed to strike a reasonable and proper balance between the protection of the rights of the individual citizen against ‘unreasonable interferences with privacy and from unfounded charges of crime,’ on the one hand, and the countervailing reasonable necessities of law enforcement for the protection of the community at large on the other, [citation omitted] The test is plainly a practical compromise and the probabilities with which it deals must be viewed in the light of ‘the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.’ [citation omitted] ‘The quantum of information which constitutes probable cause * * * must be measured by the facts of the particular case.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whether a warrantless arrest, made by a state or federal officer, is constitutionally valid depends upon whether, at the moment of arrest, the officers had probable cause to make it. Arresting officers have probable cause if, at the moment of arrest, ‘the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the . . . (arrested person) . . . had committed or was committing an offense.’ [citation omitted] In applying that test, the facts as they appeared to the arresting officer must be fudged against an objective standard, the subjective good faith of the officer is not dispositive.’’ [emphasis added]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[O]n a motion to suppress on the ground of illegal arrest without a warrant the burden is on the Government to show that there was probable cause for the arrest..-.. Obviously, however, the moving party must make a preliminary showing as to the circumstances of the arrest sufficient to raise a question as to its legality. But the question of how far, if at all, the moving defendant must go beyond showing that'the arrest was without a warrant is not without its difficulties.”
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.