United States v. Salter’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.2d 1326 · 1975
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (§ 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Adams v. Williams · United States v. Brignoni-Ponce · Harris v. United States · Almeida-Sanchez v. United States · United States v. Ortiz
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We likewise see nothing wrong in Agent Fernan’s asking Salter to step into the baggage room, a place more convenient for interrogation than an open platform * * * »”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Once a lawful stop for investigative purposes is under way, it is mere routine for an officer to ask for identification, see United States v. Lincoln, 494 F.2d 833, 838 (9th Cir. 1974). . . . Such a request is relatively non-intrusive, and there are important reasons why an officer needs to obtain a correct identification. ... an officer may need to know a person’s identity so as to be able to contact him at a later date. (Citation). Naturally, there is a possibility of harassment in even routine requests for identification, but there are too many legitimate uses not to allow it once an otherwise lawful stop has taken place. (Citation)” (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ceniceros v. State
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.