United States v. Storm’s Empirical Analysis
480 F.2d 701 · 1973
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently September 2003 · most notably United States v. Sandler (1981), United States v. Hart (1975)
35 federal appellate · 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 19 U.S.C. § 482 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (§ 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Carroll v. United States · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · D Palomo v. Kleindienst · United States v. McDaniel · United States v. Yves Glaziou and Rene L. A. Lemieux
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But this ignores the clear holding of Marsh . The search was not invalidated there because it was conducted by a state rather than a federal officer. It was invalidated because the record did not detail sufficient facts known or made known to the arresting officer to support a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle had crossed the border, been in contact with those who had, or contained unauthorized aliens or contraband. Indeed, we have no doubt that a search by a state official acting upon the well-founded direction of federal officers or a combination of them could come within the limits of a border search.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"Where there is no indication or record basis for believing that the vehicle has recently crossed the border or been in contact with those who have, however, mere proximity to it will not suffice. The circumstances surrounding the search must give rise to a `reasonable suspicion' that an offense has been committed or that a forbidden person or substance is hidden." 480 F.2d at 704 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a badge and a hat are not impregnable talismans merely because of the elasticity of our Nation's perimeter,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.