United States v. O'Looney’s Empirical Analysis
544 F.2d 385 · 1976
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably United States v. Booth (1981), Charles Laduke v. Alan C. Nelson, Etc. (1985)
54 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 10 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
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Johnson v. Zerbst · Adams v. Williams
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“of tempering rules of law by common sense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[a]s a rule, special verdicts in criminal trials are not favored.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““Finally, even if there were an illegal detention, the statement need not be suppressed. Brown v. Illinois, supra, relied upon by O’Looney, held that the giving of Miranda warnings did not sufficiently attenuate the taint of an illegal arrest so as to render ensuing inculpatory statements admissible. But Brown does not purport to establish a per se rule that any statement following an illegal arrest is tainted. ° * * Examining each of (the factors enunciated in Brown), we conclude that O’Looney’s statement is not tainted by the seizure of his person, even if we assume it was illegally accomplished. The Supreme Court in Brown placed the greatest emphasis on the flagrancy of the Fourth Amendment violation. There, the police broke into and searched the defendant’s apartment without a warrant. Upon the defendant’s return home, he was arrested at gunpoint, also without a warrant. The police had no more basis for these acts than that the defendant was an acquaintance of a murder victim. Id. at 592-93 , 95 S. Ct. 2254 . Here, at the very least, the police had a well-founded reasonable suspicion approaching probable cause to believe that O’Looney had committed a crime. There were neither drawn guns nor police actions calculated to cause surprise, fear and confusion. The detention was no more extensive than reasonably necessary to facilitate a brief inquiry into an apparent crime. Thus we need not be concerned with deterring purposefully illegal arrests for investigatory or other impr”
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.