Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 521 F.2d 459 - United States v. Bronstein

United States v. Bronstein’s Empirical Analysis

521 F.2d 459 · 1975

Citation profile

113
cited by 113 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

64 federal appellate · 3 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 113 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably United States v. Young (1984), United States v. Thomas (1985)

64 federal appellate · 3 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 16 states

69019751980199020002010decided

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 Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · United States v. Ventresca · Sedillo 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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[O]ne who consigns luggage to the common baggage area of a public carrier, airport or similar facility cannot expect to enjoy as much privacy with respect to the bag as he would with respect to his person or property carried by him personally into, on or from the carrier or facility. It is common knowledge that luggage turned over to a public carrier will be handled by many persons who, although not permitted to open it without the owner’s permission, may feel it, weigh it, check its locks, straps and seams to ensure that it will not fall apart in transit, and shake it to determine whether the contents are fragile or dangerous.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * If the police officers here had detected the aroma of the drug through their own olfactory senses, there could be no serious contention that their sniffing in the area of the bags would be tantamount to an unlawful search, (citations omitted) We fail to understand how the detection of the odoriferous drug by the use of the sensitive and schooled canine senses here employed alters the situation and renders the police procedure constitutionally suspect.” 521 F.2d at 461 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(t)here can be no reasonable expectation of privacy when one transports baggage by plane, particularly today when the menace to public safety by the skyjacker and the passage of dangerous or hazardous freight compels continuing scrutiny of passengers and their impedimenta.”
    2 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.