Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 424 F.2d 269 - United States v. Nepstead

United States v. Nepstead’s Empirical Analysis

424 F.2d 269 · 1970

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
15
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably United States v. Bedford (1975), United States v. Harper (1971)

19 federal appellate · 17 state decisions — followed in 15 states

16019701980199020002010decided

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. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)

Relies on Spinelli v. United States · Spinelli v. United States · United States v. Dunnings · Mitchell 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"The element of time can admittedly affect the validity of a search warrant. Since it is upon allegation of presently existing facts that a warrant is issued, it is essential that it be executed promptly, 'in order to lessen the possibility that the facts upon which probable cause was initially based do not become dissipated.’ If the police were allowed to execute the warrant at leisure, the safeguard of judicial control over the search which the fourth amendment is intended to accomplish would be eviscerated. Thus, a search pursuant to a 'stale’ warrant is invalid. It is generally accepted, however, that a warrant need only be executed within a reasonable time after its issuance, notwithstanding the presence of 'forthwith’ language in the warrant. Timeliness of execution should not be determined by means of a mechanical test with regard to the number of days from issuance, nor whether any cause for delay was per se reasonable or unreasonable. Rather it should be functionally measured in terms of whether probable cause still existed at the time the warrant was executed.” (Emphasis in original). (Footnotes omitted).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “provided that the probable cause recited in the affidavit continues until the time of execution, giving consideration to the intervening knowledge of the officers and the passage of time”
    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.