United States v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
458 F.2d 960 · 1972
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2020 · most notably South Dakota v. Opperman (1976), State v. Ruffino (1980)
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 22 states
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. § 3731
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Carroll v. United States · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Chambers v. Maroney
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]his was responsible, indeed laudable, police conduct to protect the property of the owner of a lawfully impounded car. If valuable property had been left on the seat and floor of the car, plainly visible to anyone peering through the window, the danger of theft would have been substantial. Not surprisingly, it appears that the locking and securing of impounded cars, and the removal and inventory of valuable property in plain sight, are standard procedures. They certainly should be.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. States v. Dulus · Hill v. State“To the extent that such inventories are allowed, the privacy of drivers is sacrificed. Rights are accorded to the police while, at the same time, more fundamental rights are withdrawn from others. Government interests, vis-a-vis those of our citizens, are not necessarily supreme.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Here, there was arguably no search; and, if there was, it was a reasonable effort to safeguard the property of the owner of the vehicle and the interest of the city in protecting itself against false claims.”
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.