United States v. Mullen’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 842 (§ 402 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2518
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Wong Sun v. United States · Bruton v. United States · United States v. Leon · Franks v. Delaware
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“dealers involved in narcotics trafficking, such as those who deal in quantities of cocaine and cocaine base, frequently maintain at their residences or other residences, cocaine and currency to finance their business, as well as records and other papers relative to the transportation, ordering, sale and distribution of controlled substances”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[The] judicial officer thus properly inferred, relying on [the affiant's] experience as stated in the affidavit, that based on [the defendant's] status as a leader of the large-scale and on-going narcotics conspiracy, as charged by the Indictment, [the defendant's] residence would yield evidence of narcotics trafficking.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.