United States v. Hellman’s Empirical Analysis
556 F.2d 442 · 1977
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably United States v. Edwards (1978), United States v. Vasey (1987)
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 10 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Carroll v. United States · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Chambers v. Maroney
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" But even if an investigatory motive was not shown , our decision would be the same because the inventorying of impounded cars was not shown to be a routine practice and policy of this police department, as was the case in Opperman . Certainly the record is clear that it was not the routine practice of the searching officer. It is the inventorying practice and not the impounding practice that, if routinely followed and supported by proper noninvestigatory purposes, could render the inventory a reasonable search under Opperman . The fact that other police departments routinely follow such a practice may give support to the proposition that such a practice, if locally followed, is reasonable. It does not, however, render reasonable a search where the inventorying practice is not locally followed and the search, thus, is a departure from local practice. A locally followed practice gives some assurance that a particular car was not singled out for special searching attention. Absent such assurance some special reason for the taking of safeguarding or security precautions that are not customarily taken should exist if the intrusion resulting from the taking of such precautions is to be rendered reasonable under the fourth amendment."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[t]his alone is sufficient to conclude that [a] warrantless [arrest] [is] unreasonable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"A Eugene police department regulation (Policy and Procedure Statement No. 17) provides for impounding of vehicles when they are parked in violation of law 'such as blocking * * * driveways,' and where the owner is arrested and there is no one to whom the vehicle can be released. Nothing is said in the regulation respecting the taking of an inventory of the car's contents. . . . The motion to suppress the items seized from the car was denied.”
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.