United States v. McDaniel’s Empirical Analysis
463 F.2d 129 · 1972
Citation profile
138 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 164 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2014 · most notably Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973), Bowen v. United States (1975)
138 federal appellate · 15 state decisions — followed in 11 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 19 U.S.C. § 482 · 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (§ 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Gideon v. Wainwright · Carroll v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Spinelli 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 164 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] refusal to sign a waiver may indicate nothing more than a reluctance to put pen to paper under the circumstance of custody”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It appears that Border Patrol agents wear two hats, one as an immigration officer and the other as a customs officer. The agents testified that they had planned to wear their immigration hats that night, but we find nothing in the statutes that would preclude them from later donning their customs hats during a proper border search.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[P]roximity to the frontier does not automatically place a 100-mile strip of citizenry within a deconstitutionalized zone, with its attendant de-escalation of Fourth Amendment requirements. We would find it peculiar, for example, if massive searches were permissible in downtown Cleveland or Buffalo on the basis of a ‘border search’ theory. Therefore, while ‘border search’ is a convenient phrase to describe a reasonableness standard for searches pursuant to the customs and immigration laws, it is not sufficiently internally descriptive to justify automatically the reasonableness of all searches conducted for customs and immigration purposes within a certain proximity to national borders.””
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.