United States v. Cecil’s Empirical Analysis
457 F.2d 1178 · 1972
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently August 2005 · most notably United States v. Johnson (1976), United States v. Anderson (1973)
37 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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) · 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Massiah v. United States · Brady v. United States · Frey 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““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.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Defendant argues that nonregistration is an essential ingredient of the offense of possession of a sawed-off shotgun and that without knowledge of nonregistration the officers could not lawfully seize the gun and arrest the defendant. The argument is specious. Without knowing the serial number of the gun the officers could not check registration, and without measuring it they could not determine its length. Two officers testified that the gun appeared to be a sawed-off shotgun. Subsequent investigation revealed that the gun was within the class defined by 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (a) and was not registered. The observation of the gun gave probable cause for the reasonable belief that a crime, the possession of a contraband firearm, was being committed in the presence of the officers. . . .We know of no rule which requires an officer to have knowledge of all the elements of the crime when he views an article which reasonably appears to be contraband. A requirement that an officer must know the fact of nonregistration before seizing a contraband firearm would stultify the enforcement of the National Firearms Act. We are convinced that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress and properly received the gun in evidence. 457 F.2d 1178 , 1180-81.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(w)e know of no rule which requires an officer to have knowledge of all the elements of the crime when he views an article which reasonably appears to be contraband. A requirement that an officer must know the fact of nonregistration before seizing a contraband firearm would stultify the enforcement of the National Firearms Act.”
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.