Bruce v. Beary’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he searches in Swint and as claimed in this case deserve to be called what they were — criminal raids. The inspection of books and records, of automobile titles and VIN numbers does not require exits to be blocked, an automatic shotgun to be stuck into an employee’s back, employees to be lined up along a fence and patted down and deprived of their identification. None of this conduct is either routine or administrative. It is the conduct of officers conducting a raid.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton · 603 F. Supp. 2d 844 - Ruttenberg v. Jones

2. “■ that an administrative inspection, pursuant to an authorizing statute, must be a routine, random, suspicionless visit to a business to inspect books and records. He asserts that any time law enforcement has “particularized suspicion” of illegal activity at a business and seeks to investigate and gather evidence, it must arrive warrant in hand. Bruce relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in [United States v.] Edmond, [ 531 U.S. 32 , 121 S.Ct. 447 , 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000),] in which the Court consistently uses the term “suspicionless searches” to characterize administrative searches. 531 U.S. at 37 [ 121 S.Ct. 447 ]. (“we have upheld brief, suspicionless seizures”). The Court in Edmond struck down a drug-interdiction checkpoint because its primary purpose was the detection of “ordinary criminal wrongdoing.” Id. at 41 [ 121 S.Ct. 447 ]. The Court said that “when government seeks to ferret out crime, it is expected to comply with the Fourth Amendment.” Id. Furthermore, the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Johnson, 408 F.3d 1313, 1321 (10th Cir.2005), supports Bruce’s view. In Johnson, the Tenth Circuit stated that when the “evidence of criminal activity [is] so compelling that police have, in essence, probable cause to believe that specific criminal conduct has occurred,” they must get a warrant. Id. This is so, the court said, because Burger did not endorse a scheme that would allow a warrantless search based on recently discovered evidence tha”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 439 F. App'x 433 - Rodriguez v. City of Cleveland

3. “[T]he raids involved 30^10 officers, including eight SWAT team officers; the inspections lasted approximately one and one-half hours; during the search, officers pointed their weapons at club employees and patrons; the police grabbed and shoved one person against a wall and pushed another patron off a bar stool; threatening comments, such as “Shut up, or I’ll shut you up myself,” were made by officers to persons detained; and an officer, with his finger on the trigger, pointed a shotgun in someone’s face.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 603 F. Supp. 2d 844 - Ruttenberg v. Jones