United States v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
489 F.2d 664 · 1973
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 5 district · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2015 · most notably Franks v. Delaware (1978), 22 Cal. 3d 67 - People v. Cook (1978)
60 federal appellate · 5 district · 47 state decisions — followed in 20 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 879 (§ 509 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Corallo v. United States · Nathanson v. United States · Industrial National Bank of Rhode Island v. Wingate Corp.
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * affidavits containing misrepresentations are invalid if the error (1) was committed with an intent to deceive the magistrate, whether or not the error is material to the showing of probable cause; or (2) made non-intentionally, but the erroneous statement is material to the establishment of probable cause for the search. Id. at 669.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"(1) An intentional misstatement by an affiant-agent, whether material or immaterial to showing probable cause; or (2) a negligent or unreasonable assertion in an affidavit, if material to showing probable cause but not where (3) the mistake is innocent, even if material to probable cause."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * Evidence should not be suppressed unless' the trial court finds that the government agent was either recklessly or intentionally untruthful. * * * Even where the officer is reckless, if the misrepresentation is immaterial, it did not affect the issuance of the warrant and there is no justification for suppressing the evidence. * * * However, we conclude that if deliberate government perjury should ever be shown, the court need not inquire as to the materiality of the perjury. The fullest deterrent sanctions of the exclusionary rule should be applied to such serious and deliberate government wrongdoing. The rule we announce today is intended only to test the credibility of government agents whose affidavits or testimony are before the magistrate.”
3 later decisions 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.