United States v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis
479 F.3d 1229 · 2007
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Booker · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Crawford v. Washington · Bruton 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“discussing the transfer of money and drugs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘Factors, which when taken separately may be perfectly innocent behavior, can support a finding of reasonable suspicion when taken together. Conversely, although the nature of the totality of the circumstances makes it possible for individually innocuous factors to add up to reasonable suspicion, it is impossible for a combination of wholly innocent factors to combine into a suspicious conglomeration unless there are concrete reasons for such an interpretation. In analyzing the factors that may amount to reasonable suspicion, we must be careful to judge the officer’s conduct in light of common sense and ordinary human experience but also to grant deference to a trained law enforcement officer’s ability to distinguish between innocent and suspicious circumstances.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the Supreme Court declined to precisely define “testimonial,” the Court explicitly noted that, historically, “statements in furtherance of a conspiracy” present an “example” of “statements that by their nature [a]re not testimonial.” Moreover, the Court in Crawford cited Bourjaily with approval as one of several recent cases that “hew closely to the traditional line.” ... Because Crawford did not overturn Bourjaily , the latter continues to control our application of the Confrontation Clause to Rule 801 co-conspirator statements.”
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.