Spinelli v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
382 F.2d 871 · 1967
Citation profile
144 federal appellate · 11 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 208 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2015 · most notably Spinelli v. United States (1969), United States v. Harris (1971)
144 federal appellate · 11 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 14 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Aguilar v. Texas · Brinegar 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 208 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the circumstances of the crime make an exact description of the fruits and instrumentalities a virtual impossibility, the searching officer can only be expected to describe the generic class of items he is seeking.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A warrant is a court order requiring the police to perform a ministerial function. They must be allowed certain leeway in the performance of this duty, but likewise they must be required to diligently perform according to the court’s demand. A lapse of up to ten days may be reasonable when the delay is caused by distance, traffic conditions, weather, inability to locate the person or premises to be searched, personal safety, etc. However, a delay of a few hours may be unreasonable if the police are not diligent in executing the warrant and purpose of the delay was to prejudice the rights of a suspect. * * * & * * “* * * while unreasonable delay cannot be countenanced, still officers must be allowed a certain latitude of action when they are on the delicate and sometimes dangerous mission of executing warrants. * * * ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * it is the right to use the premises that is a factor determinative of standing. If the defendant is legally occupying, or has been granted a right to occupy the premises, even though he is not physically present at the time of the search, then his privacy has been invaded by a search of these premises.” Spinelli v. United States, supra, 382 F.2d at 879 .”
3 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.