Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 53 F.3d 684 - United States v. McSween

United States v. McSween’s Empirical Analysis

53 F.3d 684 · 1995

Citation profile

98
cited by 98 later decisions
11
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably State v. Moore (2000), United States v. Solis (2002)

31 federal appellate · 17 state decisions — followed in 11 states

5501995200020102020decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on United States v. Ross · United States v. Chadwick · Florida v. Jimeno · Arkansas v. Sanders · Payless Wholesale Distributor, Inc. v. Albert Culver (P.R.) Inc.

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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]e are unwilling to read Jimeno to hold ... that enforcement officials must conduct all searches in plain view of the suspect, and in a manner slowly enough that he may withdraw or delimit his consent at any time during the search.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “It is well settled that, in a case such as this, the detection of the odor of marihuana justifies “a search of the entire vehicle.” [U.S. v.] Reed, 882 F.2d [147,] 149 [ (5th Cir. 1989) ]. As the Supreme Court stated in Ross , “If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.” 456 U.S. at 825 , 102 S.Ct. at 2173 . See also United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478, 482 , 105 S.Ct. 881, 884 , 83 L.Ed.2d 890 (1985). The Court further observed that, if there is probable cause to suspect that the vehicle contains contraband, then the search may extend not only to closed containers, but also to a “car’s trunk or glove compartment.” Ross, 456 U.S. at 823 , 102 S.Ct. at 2172 . The same reasoning applies to the area under the hood, where drugs may also be concealed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is well settled that warrantless searches of automobiles are permitted by the Fourth Amendment if the officers have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or other evidence of a crime.”
    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.