Murray v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
333 F.2d 409 · 1964
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113
Relies on Jones v. United States · Weeks v. United States · Nardone v. United States · Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company · Goldstein 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the federal courts, the exclusion of evidence secured by an illegal search is the method adopted to enforce the right of privacy provided in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. This was announced in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 , and subsequently was incorporated in Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Whether this is the best enforcement or protective device has been frequently debated. Thus the purpose is to deter unlawful searches, and to protect indirectly the constitutional rights of the accused. Goldstein v. United States, 316 U.S. 114 , 62 S.Ct. 1000 , 86 L.Ed. 1312 . The supression of such evidence is thus an exception to the general rule that all relevant evidence should be admitted. Evidence sought to be excluded is admissible until the accused has established that his rights under the rule have been invaded. The burden to establish facts necessary to sustain his position is on the person seeking to avail himself of the rule. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 ; Wilson v. United States, 218 F.2d 754 (10th Cir.). The contentions of appellant here concern the status of the premises searched rather than the status of the property seized during the search. The appellant was not on or near the premises when they were searched. ****** “We held in Coon v. United States, 36 F.2d 164 (10th Cir.), that the legality of a search can be raised by a ‘lawful occupant’ of the premise”
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.