United States ex rel. Hines v. LaVallee’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.2d 1109 · 1975
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 5 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 121 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably United States v. Booth (1981), Pulliam v. State (1976)
56 federal appellate · 5 district · 37 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
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Wade · Neil v. Biggers · Schmerber v. State of California
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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Despite the breadth of the language used in Miranda , the Supreme Court was concerned with protecting the suspect against interrogation of an investigative nature rather than the obtaining of basic identifying data required for booking and arraignment. This view is confirmed by the most recent draft of the American Law Institute’s Model Code of Pre-Ar-raignment Procedure § 140.8(5) (April 1, 1974), which would limit Miranda -type safeguards to “questioning designed to investigate crimes or the involvement of the arrested person or others in crimes” as distinguished from “non-investigative questioning.” Accord United States v. Menichino, 497 F.2d 935, 939-42 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. LaMonica, 472 F.2d 580 (9th Cir. 1972); contra, Proctor v. United States, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 241 , 404 F.2d 819 (1968). Accordingly we hold that since the answer furnished by Hines to the arresting officer in respect to his inquiry regarding Hines’ marital status constituted merely basic identification required for booking purposes, its admission was not barred because of the officer’s failure to satisfy Miranda’s warning-waiver procedure.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We recognize that this exception to Miranda lends itself to the possibility of abuse by police who might, under the guise seeking pedigree data, elicit an incriminatory statement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rosa v. McCray“questions not designed to investigate crimes or the involvement of the arrested person or others in crimes. Menichino , 497 F.2d at 941, f. 3 .”
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.