United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
381 F.3d 984 · 2004
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 45 U.S.C. § 541 (Federal Employers' Liability Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 552A (§ 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974)
Relies on Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · Flippo v. West Virginia · United States v. Corral · United States v. Pena · United States v. Marquez
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Jackson argues that Amtrak is a government agency whose disclosure to Perry of the information surrounding his travel plans violated his rights under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and the Fourth Amendment. As a result, Jackson argues, he is entitled to suppression of all the evidence seized during his encounter with Perry. Assuming, without deciding, that the Privacy Act can create a reasonable expectation of privacy that could support suppression of evidence, Jackson’s argument fails because Amtrak is not an agency within the meaning of the Privacy Act. The Fifth Circuit has held that Amtrak is not subject to the Privacy Act. See Ehm v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 732 F.2d 1250 , 1251-53 (5th Cir.1984). Noting that Amtrak’s charter, 45 U.S.C. § 541 , specifically provides that Amtrak “will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government,” the Ehm Court held that Amtrak was not an “agency” within the meaning of the Privacy Act. Ehm, 732 F.2d at 1252-53. In Lebron v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374, 392 , 115 S.Ct. 961 , 130 L.Ed.2d 902 (1995), the Supreme Court specifically noted that Amtrak’s charter is dispositive of Amtrak’s status as a government entity for the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act because Congress controls whether Amtrak is subject to the provisions of the statutes which it enacts. The Privacy Act is part of the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552a. As a consequence, we find the Ehm Court’s reasoning persuas”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“On March 24, 2003, DEA agent Jarrell Perry obtained a Passenger Name Record (“PNR”) from Amtrak which showed that Jackson had paid cash for a one-way coach train ticket from Los Angeles, California to Akron, Ohio. Perry testified that, based on his experience, he determined that Jackson’s travel arrangements were consistent with those of drug couriers. As a consequence, Perry approached Jackson on the Amtrak train when it stopped in Albuquerque, New Mexico.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A warrantless search can be conducted if law enforcement agents see, within plain view, the contents of a container and it is apparent or a 'foregone conclusion' that such contents are contraband.”
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.