United States v. Darrow’s Empirical Analysis
499 F.2d 64 · 1974
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 472
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chimel v. California · Chambers v. Maroney · United States v. Calandra · United States v. Robinson
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The only other difference between this case and Chambers is that here the officers obtained and relied on a warrant which may be invalid, whereas in Chambers the warrant process was never invoked. At least on these facts, the officers should not be penalized for going before a magistrate. It would be a different case if the magistrate had denied a warrant, and the officers had thereafter searched in purported reliance on some exception to the warrant requirement. But here the officers did not act in bad faith. We agree with [the trial judge] that they are to be commended for seeking a warrant; they should not be required to run the risk that a poorly drafted affidavit will invalidate an otherwise permissible warrantless search.”
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.