United States v. Roth’s Empirical Analysis
391 F.2d 507 · 1967
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 8 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2020 · most notably North Carolina v. Wrenn (1974), United States v. Carmichael (1973)
62 federal appellate · 8 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 16 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. § 659
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Jones v. United States · United States v. Ventresca · Giordenello v. United States · Tilton v. Missouri Pacific Railroad
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f an affidavit is the only matter presented to the issuing magistrate ... the warrant must stand or fall solely on the contents of the affidavit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““At the hearing on the motion to suppress in the instant case, testimony was elicited which exposed a fatal flaw in the affidavit. The affiant, Morrison, testified tha't the confidential informant told him, ‘there was a load of Hamilton Beach products that were stored in a grocery store out on the 6500 block of Calumet Avenue in Hammond, Indiana.’ In contrast, Morrison’s affidavit stated that the informant told him that ‘the said electric blenders [the stolen items]’ were on the defendant’s premises. (Emphases added.) When Morrison’s testimony is compared with his statement in the affidavit, a contradiction is disclosed, glaring enough to require the trial court to find the affidavit insufficient as a matter of law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Recital of some of the underlying circumstances in the affidavit is essential if the magistrate is to perform his detached function and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police. However, where these circumstances are detailed, where reason for crediting the source of the information is given, and when a magistrate has found probable cause, the courts should not invalidate the warrant by interpreting the affidavit in a hypertechnical, rather than a commonsense, manner.”
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.