United States v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
475 F.2d 977 · 1973
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 5 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably United States v. Three Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Dollars ($364,960.00) in United States Currency (1981), Commonwealth v. Platou (1973)
26 federal appellate · 5 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 19 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
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Chimel v. California · 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e note that the search was of a purse resting separately from the person of its owner. As such, it was not being "worn" by appellee and thus did not constitute an extension of her person so as to make the search one of her person. (Citations omitted) ... the police could reasonably have believed that items sought and described in the warrant had been concealed in the purse, and, notwithstanding appellee's status as a visitor on the premises, could have searched the purse in pursuit of items for which the warrant issued. (footnotes omitted). Id. at 979 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Jackson · State v. Nabarro“did not constitute an extension of her person so as to make the search one of her person. * * * The invasion of appellee's privacy was therefore of a lesser degree than if she had been subjected to a search of her clothing or of objects being held by her.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[B]oth the information presented in the affidavit supporting the warrant, indicating that Stewart's apartment was a place where narcotics were sold as well as stored; and the delay, the suspicious noises that preceded the executing officers' entry into the apartment, and the apparent effort of Stewart to escape through the bedroom window, all suggesting attempts to thwart discovery of the illegal activity that the police suspected was being carried out on the premises. With emphasis on the limited nature of the circumstances presented, we hold that the search of the [the defendant's] purse was consistent with the demands of the Fourth Amendment. Under these facts, the police could reasonably have believed that items sought and described in the warrant had been concealed in the purse, and, notwithstanding [the defendant's] status as a visitor on the premises, could have searched the purse in pursuit of items for which the warrant issued. "In Walker v. United States , 117 U.S.App.D.C. 151 , 327 F.2d 597 , 600 (1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 956 , 84 S.Ct. 1635 , 12 L.Ed.2d 500 (1964), this court permitted the search of a wallet and bag held by one who shared occupancy of the residence searched under authority of a warrant, holding that a contrary result 'would be to suggest that a warrant to search premises may be frustrated by the device of simply picking up the guilty object and holding it in one's hand.' Similarly *Page 1229 here, frustration of the warrant's purpose should ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dees v. State
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.