Gilbert v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
366 F.2d 923 · 1966
Citation profile
121 federal appellate · 5 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 176 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2004 · most notably United States v. Wade (1967), Gilbert v. California (1967)
121 federal appellate · 5 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 19 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 18 U.S.C. § 1071 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 3109
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Gideon v. Wainwright · Aguilar v. Texas · Jones 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 176 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Substantial considerations favor the recognition of a carefully limited right of brief police detention on less than probable cause to believe the person detained has committed a felony." At 928.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Granting that the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures makes no distinction between informal detention without cause and formal arrest without cause, there is a difference between that `cause' which will justify informal detention short of arrest and the probable cause standard required to justify that kind of custody traditionally denominated an arrest. * * * We take it as settled that there is nothing ipso facto unconstitutional in the brief detention of citizens under circumstances not justifying an arrest, for purposes of limited inquiry in the course of routine police investigations. * * * [D]ue regard for the practical necessities of effective law enforcement requires that the validity of brief, informal detention be recognized whenever it appears from the totality of the circumstances that the detaining officers could have had reasonable grounds for their action. A founded suspicion is all that is necessary, some basis from which the court can determine that the detention was not arbitrary or harassing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harper v. State“Even the Justices who disagreed with the result in Ker v. State of California agreed that some exceptions to the rule of prior announcement are to be recognized. 374 U.S. at 54-65 , 83 S.Ct. 1623 . This much admitted, it would be difficult to justify refusal to excuse prior announcement where to require it would create palpable peril to the life or limb of the arresting officers.”
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.