United States v. Klump’s Empirical Analysis
536 F.3d 113 · 2008
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably State v. Edmonds (2012), Southerland v. City of New York (2011)
11 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 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 1 U.S.C. § 109 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Franks v. Delaware · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · Mincey v. Arizona
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he core question is whether the facts, as they appeared at the moment of entry, would lead a reasonable, experienced officer ... to believe that there was an urgent need to render aid or take action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he essential question ... is whether law enforcement agents were confronted by an 'urgent need' to render aid or take action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]othing in the Fourth Amendment required [the firefighters] to wait until they saw actual smoke or flames to enter a building that they reasonably believed might be on fire.... Nor is it relevant that no fire or smoke was found. The objective standard for assessing reasonableness focuses on what the facts, as they appeared at the moment of entry, would lead a reasonable, experienced officer to believe. [Moreover,] the Supreme Court has made clear that the subjective intent of government agents is irrelevant to determining whether a particular search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.... Rather, “[a]n action is ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the individual officer’s state of mind, ‘as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify [the] action.’ ””
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.