United States v. Burns’s Empirical Analysis
37 F.3d 276 · 1994
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably United States v. Saadeh (1995), United States v. Vega (1995)
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Adams v. Williams · Berkemer v. McCarty
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person is in custody ... if that person is either formally arrested or has suffered “a restraint on freedom of movement” of the degree associated with a formal arrest, (citations omitted). In determining whether. a suspect is in custody, courts look at “how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood the situation, (citations omitted). This determination is based on the “totality of the circumstances.” (citation omitted). “The accused’s freedom to leave the scene and the purpose, place and length of interrogation are all relevant factors in making this determination.” (citations omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`restraint on freedom of movement' of the degree associated with a formal arrest[,]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Most detentions that occur during the execution of a search warrant, like most Terry stops, are “comparatively nonthreatening.” They are often short in duration. Moreover, such detentions are “surely less intrusive than the search itself.” ... Therefore, we conclude that, in the usual case, a person detained during the execution of a search warrant is not “in custody” for purposes of Miranda.”
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.