United States v. Bonds’s Empirical Analysis
422 F.2d 660 · 1970
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 2002 · most notably 98 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Bonds (1982), Loria v. Gorman (2002)
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 5841 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Chimel v. California · Beck v. State of Ohio
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In the absence of probable cause for arrest, officers have a right under appropriate circumstances to stop and interview a person for purposes of investigation. In such a situation, a limited exception to the search warrant requirement exists allowing officers to search the person and immediate vicinity for weapons where the officers have reason to believe their safety is endangered. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 . . . [1968]; Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 . . . [1969]."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Under Fourth Amendment theory, however, a reviewing court must make an objective evaluation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest of an individual. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed.2d 889. Thus, if probable cause exists for the arrest of a person for a felony at the time of the arrest, the search incident to the arrest will be upheld if reasonable in scope, although the officer did not accurately name the offense for which the arrest was made. McNeely v. United States, 8 Cir., 353 F.2d 913, 918; Klingler v. United States, 8 Cir., 409 F.2d 299 , 305-306. See also In re Kiser, 8 Cir., 419 F.2d 1134 ; United States v. Skinner, 8 Cir., 412 F.2d 98 , 102.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The validity of the search in this case [where an individual was wrongfully arrested for vagrancy but could have been lawfully arrested for robbery] does not turn upon whether the arresting officer stated the proper grounds for the arrest; instead, it turns upon whether the police had probable cause to believe that the automobile contained the fruits of the robbery.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ricehill v. Brewer
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.