United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.2d 259 · 1975
Citation profile
132 federal appellate · 3 district · 87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 241 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably United States v. Conforte (1980), Campbell v. Wood (1994)
132 federal appellate · 3 district · 87 state decisions — followed in 32 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 18 U.S.C. § 3651 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · United States v. Biswell · Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States
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 241 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"This guiding interpretive principle plainly suggests the manner in which the Act's administration should be accommodated to the constitutional guarantees of the Bill of Rights. While it must be *Page 1051 recognized that probationers, like parolees and prisoners, properly are subject to limitations from which ordinary persons are free, it is also true that these limitations in the aggregate must serve the ends of probation. Conditions that unquestionably restrict otherwise inviolable constitutional rights may properly be subject to special scrutiny to determine whether the limitation does in fact serve the dual objectives of rehabilitation and public safety. But this is not to say that there is any presumption, however weak, that such limitations are impermissible. Rather, it is necessary to recognize that when fundamental rights are curbed it must be done sensitively and with a keen appreciation that the infringement must serve the broad purposes of the Probation Act. This burden cannot be avoided by asserting either that the probationer has voluntarily waived his rights by not objecting in a proper manner to the conditions imposed upon him or that he must accept any condition the court 'deems best' as a consequence of being 'in custody'." (Footnotes omitted)”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a subterfuge for criminal investigations.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * It is obvious, however, that opinions differ as to what controls are improper, and we express no opinion here regarding the extent to which the states constitutionally may impose conditions more intrusive on the probationer’s privacy than those we here have indicated are proper under the Federal Probation Act. (footnote omitted) For this reason we express no opinion regarding the decision of the Supreme Court of California in People v. Mason, 5 Cal.3d 759 , 97 Cal. Rptr. 302 , 488 P.2d 630 (1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1016 , 92 S.Ct. 1289 , 31 L.Ed.2d 478 (1972), which permitted contraband discovered by means of a search by police officers pursuant to a probation condition similar to that before us, to be used in obtaining the conviction of a probationer for the offense to which the contraband related.” United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, supra, 521 F.2d at 266 .”
4 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.