United States v. Molkenbur’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 , 42-43 [ 83 S.Ct. 1623 , 1634, 1635, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 ] (1963); United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559 [ 47 S.Ct. 746 , 71 L.Ed. 1202 ] (1927); Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 [ 44 S.Ct. 445 , 68 L.Ed. 898 ] (1924).” Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 , 236, 88 S.Ct. 992 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968). Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S. at 464, 473 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 ; United States v. Briddle, 436 F.2d 4 , 7 (8th Cir. 1970), cert, denied, 401 U.S. 921 , 91 S.Ct. 910 , 27 L.Ed.2d 24 (1971); United States v. Molkenbur, 430 F.2d 563 , 566 (8th Cir.), cert, denied, 400 U.S. 952 , 91 S.Ct. 244 , 27 L.Ed.2d 25 (1970); Searles v. State of Minnesota, 428 F.2d 1188 , 1189 (8th Cir. 1970).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kaufman v. United States · 337 So. 2d 22 - Barnes v. State

2. ““Molkenbur’s arrest occurred on April 16. On that date, Mrs. Berghofer and her two daughters, while visiting in the premises across the street from the Toler home, saw Molkenbur again drive the Hennis Truck Lines tractor-trailer unit to front of the Toler residence. One daughter who knew Officer Ubben telephoned him at police headquarters to report the stop. While she was speaking to Ubben, the other ladies reported seeing the driver take a large package from the truck and hand it over the fence to Toler, who dragged it to the rear of the house. The caller relayed this additional information to Ubben. . . . ❖ * * “Officer Ubben and his partner, William Tipolt, arrived at the Toler address in another squad car which they drove into the public alleyway at the rear of the Toler residence. From there, these officers observed a large, partly-torn-open cardboard carton located near the rear of Toler’s yard, just inside a three-and one-half or four-foot chain-link fence. The carton lay between the fence and a hedge row located in back of the house. The hedge partially obstructed the view from the house toward the back yard. Ubben saw Sergeant Llewelyn near the rear of Toler’s house and called to him, directing his attention toward the merchandise in the cardboard box. Llewelyn then walked toward the fence and saw these items. Thereafter, Ubben and Tipolt entered the yard and arrested Toler for suspected theft. ❖ ❖ :H “This case falls outside the ‘search’ provision of the Fourth Amen”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 172 Ind. App. 148 - LeClercq v. State

3. ““Having properly seized the apparently stolen merchandise, the police are authorized to thoroughly examine the objects of the seizure later at police headquarters without a warrant. See Chambers, supra, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 ; Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 , 87 S.Ct. 788 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1967).” 430 F.2d 563 , 568.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Golembiewski