United States v. Odeh’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.3d 157 · 2008
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably United States v. Abu-Jihaad (2010), United States v. Odeh (2008)
18 federal appellate · 1 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. § 2231 · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 50 U.S.C. § 1801 (§ 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · United States v. Leon · Payton v. New York
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may invoke the Fourth Amendment against searches conducted abroad by the U.S. government”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he suppression motion at issue here involved a “limited” factual inquiry into the purpose and scope of the contested surveillance based on evidence relating to national security. As referenced above, the District Court observed that “the issues raised ... were predominantly legal questions and the fact-based inquiry into whether the surveil lance was conducted for foreign intelligence purposes or law enforcement purposes was limited ”. Our own review of the record persuades us of the correctness of the conclusions of the District Court with respect to the limited nature of the inquiry into the purpose of the surveillance and the need, at the time, to keep the government’s submissions confidential. In reaching this conclusion, we do not minimize [defendant’s] valid interest in examining the government’s evidence and challenging the government’s assertions. Nor do we doubt the utility of the adversary process to determine facts or ventilate legal arguments in the normal course. Nevertheless, the imperatives of national security and the capacity of “in camera procedures [to] adequately safeguard [defendant’s] Fourth Amendment rights” weighed against holding an evidentiary hearing under these circumstances .... [W]e conclude that the District Court’s decision to resolve [defendant’s] suppression motion without a hearing does not constitute error, much less an abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Winslow v. Portuondo“The question of whether a warrant is required for overseas searches of U.S. Citizens has not been decided by the Supreme Court, by our Court, or, as far as we are able to determine, by any of our sister circuits.” 552 F.3d 157, 168 (2nd Cir.2008). 5 . As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has observed,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.