Lee David Arwine v. William H. Bannan, Warden’s Empirical Analysis
346 F.2d 458 · 1965
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently September 2004 · most notably 66 Cal. 2d 107 - People v. Webb (1967), United States v. Ravich (1970)
21 federal appellate · 23 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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
Relies on Carroll v. United States · Johnson v. United States · United States v. Rabinowitz · Preston v. United States · Agnello 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Supreme Court has pointed out that it is only unreasonable searches and seizures which come within the constitutional interdict and that the test of reasonableness cannot be stated in rigid and absolute terms. Each case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 150 , 67 S.Ct. 1098 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 . What is a reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula, but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““A search without a warrant is valid if incidental to an arrest only because the need to protect the officers, and other similar practical considerations, justify an exception to the general requirement that a warrant is a precondition to a valid search. When the justification is lacking, as in the case at bar where the vehicle was in police custody and its occupants in jail, then regardless of the time involved or the existence of probable cause for the search, a search without a warrant is simply not incident to the arrest.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We are of the view that the arrest and search, in this case, were units of an integrated incident, and, regardless of hairsplitting distinctions of contemporaneity, were incident to the lawful arrest. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the search was not an unreasonable search, and was not unlawful in contravention of the Fourth Amendment; and that the evidence obtained as a result of the search was admissible on appellant’s trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.