Amador-Gonzalez v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
391 F.2d 308 · 1968
Citation profile
90 federal appellate · 7 district · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 194 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2013 · most notably United States v. Robinson (1973), Government of Virgin Islands v. Gereau (1974)
90 federal appellate · 7 district · 80 state decisions — followed in 28 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 19 U.S.C. § 482
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Johnson 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 194 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * I would hold that, pretext or no pretext, a lawful arrest of an automobile driver for a traffic offense provides no lawful predicate for the search of the driver or his car— absent special circumstances. * * 5j: * Si* “There is a similarity between the effect of a ‘pretextual arrest’ and the effect of an unlawful arrest, but the two cannot be equated. Proof that a traffic arrest was only a pretext to search for evidence of another offense is significant legally only because it bears on the reasonableness of the search. Search incident to arrest is unreasonable, if there is a lack of relation between the search (or scope of' the search) and the offense for which the arrest was made. That lack of relationship exists without regard to the motivative cause of the arrest when, as in this case, an automobile driver is arrested for making the wrong turn but is searched for narcotics. “In this case one of the agents admitted that he arrested Gonzalez in order to search the automobile for narcotics. More often, the determination of the motivation for an arrest requires some judicial divination of the subjective mind. We will have fewer unconstitutional searches, if the emphasis is on the objective relationship between the nature of the offense and the nature (circumstances) of the search, rather than on the motivative cause of the arrest.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"`A search incident to an arrest must have as one or more of its purposes the discovery of (1) the fruits of the crime; (2) instrumentalities used to commit the crime; (3) weapons or like material which put the arresting officer in danger or might facilitate escape; (4) contraband, the possession of which is a crime * * * and, by a recent decision; (5) material which constitutes evidence that the person has committed it. * * * Purposes 4 and 5 * * * require probable cause as a predicate for search.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[A] lawful arrest of an automobile driver for a traffic offense provides no lawful predicate for the search of the driver or his car — absent special circumstances.” 391 F.2d, at 315 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lawson v. State · Smith v. White
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.