Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 334 U.S. 699 - Trupiano v. United States

Trupiano v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

334 U.S. 699 · 1948

Citation profile

1,347
cited by 1,347 later decisions
112
cited 112 times by the Supreme Court
47
states following
November 2021
most recently cited

505 federal appellate · 55 district · 493 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,347 later decisions (112 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2021 · most notably Chimel v. California (1969), Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971)

505 federal appellate · 55 district · 493 state decisions — followed in 47 states

4040194819501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Carroll v. United States · Johnson v. United States · Boyd v. United States · Weeks v. United States · Agnello v. United States

Cited together with United States v. Rabinowitz · Johnson v. United States · McDonald v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Harris 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 1,347 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A search or seizure without a warrant as an incident to a lawful arrest has always been considered to be a strictly limited right. It grows out of the inherent necessities of the situation at the time of the arrest. But there must be something more in the way of necessity than merely a lawful arrest.”
    25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A rule of thumb requiring that a search warrant always be procured whenever practicable may be appealing from the vantage point of easy administration. But we cannot agree that this requirement should be crystallized into a sine qua non to the reasonableness of a search. It is fallacious to judge events retrospectively and thus to determine, considering the time element alone, that there was time to procure a search warrant. Whether there was time may well be dependent upon considerations other than the ticking off of minutes or hours. The judgment of the officers as to when to close the trap on a criminal committing a crime in their presence or who they have reasonable cause to believe is committing a felony is not determined solely upon whether there was time to procure a search warrant. Some flexibility will be accorded law officers engaged in daily battle with criminals for whose restraint criminal laws are essential. “It is appropriate to note that the Constitution does not say that the right of the people to be secure in their persons should not be violated without a search warrant if it is practicable for the officers to procure one. The. mandate of the Fourth Amendment is that the people shall be secure against unreason^ able searches. It is not disputed that there may be reasonable searches, incident to an arrest, without a search warrant. Upon acceptance of this established rule that some authority to search follows from lawfully taking the person into custody, it ”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A search warrant must describe with particularity the place to be searched and the things to be seized. Without such a warrant, however, officers are free to determine for themselves the extent of their search and the precise objects to be seized. This is no small difference. It is the difference upon which depends much of the potency of the right of privacy.”
    3 later decisions 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.