Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 573 F.2d 913 - United States v. Ballard

United States v. Ballard’s Empirical Analysis

573 F.2d 913 · 1978

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

58 federal appellate · 3 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012 · most notably Florida v. Royer (1983), United States v. Shabazz (1993)

58 federal appellate · 3 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 11 states

65019781980199020002010decided

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. § 841 (Amendments of 1973 to Federal Law)

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Faretta v. California · United States v. Brignoni-Ponce · United States v. Jones

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

  1. ““The most significant factor relied upon by the court was a warning informing defendant of his right to refuse to permit the search.... The court reasoned: ‘While warnings prior to a consensual search may not have the same indispensability as those required prior to a confession ... they do help insure that the consent is free, voluntary, and untainted by the arrest’s possible illegality. In the instant case the presence of these warnings leads us to conclude that any coercion flowing from the possible illegality of appellant’s arrest was dissipated.’ ... Similarly ... this court held that advising a defendant of his right to refuse to permit a search was a sufficient intervening occurrence to remove the influence of a prior fourth amendment violation.” Ballard, supra, at 916 (quoting Bretti v. Wainwright, 439 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir.1971) (citing United States v. Fike, 449 F.2d 191 (5th Cir.1971)).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When trying to establish that there was a voluntary consent after an illegal stop, the government has a much heavier burden to carry than when the consent is given after a permissible stop.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a) unusual nervousness; (b) no luggage or very limited baggage; (c) possession of an unusually large amount of cash, especially when in bills of small denominations; (d) unusual itinerary, taking circuitous routes from cities known to be source cities for narcotics, such as flying to New Orleans from Los Angeles by way of St. Louis; (e) arriving from a known narcotics source city; (f) paying for an airline ticket in currency of small denominations; (g) purchasing a one-way ticket; (h) use of an alias; (i) use of a false telephone number on an airline reservation; (j) placing a telephone call immediately upon arrival at the airport; and (k) travel by a known narcotics trafficker.”
    2 later decisions 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.