United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.3d 902 · 2008
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2024
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Rakas v. Illinois · Florida v. Royer · Johnson v. United States · United States v. Matlock · Illinois v. Rodriguez
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Exigency, however, does not exist by mere supposition. Stating a belief that these men were about to destroy evidence after safely arriving at the [motel] and checking into their room, seemingly without knowledge that they were being tracked by law enforcement, is quite speculative. And, as noted, [an officer’s] subjective belief is not determinative in our analysis. “[Instead, t]his court must look objectively at what a reasonable police officer would believe[,]” given the objective facts at the officer’s disposal at the time of entry.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“This court is highly deferential to district court credibility determinations.” (emphasis added)). 8 . Because the officers’ suppression hearing testimony is not to the contrary, and Defendant and Mrs. Comstock's respective testimony was consistent in this regard, we assume the narcotics officers made these statements. 9 . Having concluded authorities did not violate Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, we need not address the Government’s alternative argument that Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied in light of the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“did not register or pay for the hotel room does not necessarily preclude him from having a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room”). . There is no dispute that Levetzow had authority to consent to the search of the room even though Defendant had belongings there. Generally,”
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.