United States v. Blake’s Empirical Analysis
484 F.2d 50 · 1973
Citation profile
99 federal appellate · 5 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably United States v. Ochs (1979), United States v. Green (1977)
99 federal appellate · 5 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 13 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. § 3109 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire
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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It was also proper for the jury to consider the amount and street value of the heroin seized as leading to the conclusion that the defendant intended to distribute the heroin. In two recent cases this court has approved the use of the amount and value of a controlled substance as proper circumstantial evidence to infer an intention to distribute.... [t]he validity of such an inference depends on whether the amount and value of the controlled substance ‘will support an inference of intent to distribute as distinguished from mere possession for personal use’.... [I]n this case, Blake possessed the equivalent of 420 ‘dime bags’ of heroin with a ‘street’ value of $4200. Such an amount and value was sufficient to support an inference by the jury that the defendant possessed the heroin with the intention to distribute it. 29”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Matthews“Hillebrand further testified during the trial that he saw a door in the kitchen that went downstairs apparently to a basement. Hillebrand said that he and Detective Anderson went downstairs to check for other persons. In the process of making this security check of the basement they saw the white purse [which contained heroin] on the floor in “plain view” and under an open clothes chute. The Government’s ... justification for the search comports with the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. . . . Once in the apartment, a quick and cursory viewing for the apartment is permissible to check for other persons who might present a security risk.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[TJhere was not a possible partisan who might conceal evidence, but a defendant who had attempted to conceal evidence. In short, this case .presents the situation, viewed as an exceptional circumstance, in which imminent, not possible, removal or destruction . . . existed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thomas v. Parett
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.