Rosencranz v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
356 F.2d 310 · 1966
Citation profile
107 federal appellate · 15 district · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 229 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2021 · most notably United States v. Dunn (1987), 71 Cal. 2d 1096 - People v. Edwards (1969)
107 federal appellate · 15 district · 85 state decisions — followed in 29 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 5601
Relies on Carroll v. United States · Aguilar v. Texas · Brinegar v. United States · Jones v. United States · United States v. Ventresca
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 229 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The present tense is suspended in the air; it has no point of reference. It speaks, after all, of the time when an anonymous informant conveyed information to the officer, which could have been a day, a week, or months before the date of the affidavit. To make a double inference, that the undated information speaks as of a date close to that of the affidavit and that therefore the undated observation made on the strength of such information must speak as of an even more recent date would be to open the door to the unsupervised issuance of search warrants on the basis of aging information. * * * Indeed, if the affidavit in this case be adjudged valid, it is difficult to see how any function but that of a rubber stamp remains for them. ****** “ * * * It is one thing to expect the magistrate to give a commonsense reading to facts set forth and to draw inferences from them. It is quite another thing to expect the magistrate to reach for external facts and to build inference upon inference in order to create a reasonable basis for his belief that a crime is presently being committed.” Id. at 316-317 .”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[the Fourth Amendment] speaks of the `houses' of persons, which word has been enlarged by the courts to include the `curtilage'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * he has reason to believe that on the premises * * * there is now being concealed certain property, namely mash fit for distillation, apparatus for the purpose of distillation and nontax paid alcohol which are held in violation of Title 26, U.S.C. Sec. 5601 (a), (1) (6), (7), (8), (12): “And that the facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a Search Warrant are as follows: “1. Information given anonymously to the Affiant that the aforementioned materials are being held on said premises. “2. The detection of a strong odor of mash outside the premises by the Affiant.” Id. at 312, n. 1 . (Emphasis added.)”
2 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.