United States v. Palmer’s Empirical Analysis
575 F.2d 721 · 1978
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably United States v. Vance (1995), United States v. Duncan (1982)
31 federal appellate · 2 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Almeida-Sanchez v. United States · Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Prepmore Apparel, Inc. · Henderson v. United States · United States v. Guadalupe-Garza
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that if conducted in public ... can be said to result in embarrassment to one of reasonable sensibilities.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Real suspicion” justifying the initiation of a strip search is subjective suspicion supported by objective, articulable facts that would reasonably lead an experienced, prudent customs official to suspect that a particular person seeking to cross our border is concealing something on his body for the purpose of transporting it into the United States contrary to law. The objective, articulable facts must bear some reasonable relationship to suspicion that something is concealed on the body of the person to be searched; otherwise, the scope of the search is not related to the justification for its initiation, as it must be to meet the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for examination of vehicle[s], luggage, contents of pockets or purse, no suspicion at all is required; for a strip search, “real suspicion directed specifically to that person” is required . . . But between a search of pockets and a strip search there can be a wide variety of types of intrusion, with varying degrees of intrusiveness . . . It is hardly feasible to enunciate a clear, and simple standard for each .”
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.