United States v. Hittle’s Empirical Analysis
575 F.2d 799 · 1978
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2020
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Jones v. United States · United States v. Ventresca · Christofferson Et Al. v. Washington
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The underlying rationale of the [1972] amendment to Rule 41(c) is important, and the note to the amendment is instructive: `If testimony is taken it must be recorded, transcribed, and made part of the affidavit or affidavits. This is to insure an adequate basis for determining the sufficiency of the evidentiary grounds for the issuance of the search warrant if that question should later arise.' Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(c). "It is apparent the reason for adopting this procedural safeguard is to assure that the constitutional rights involved are adequately protected. The probable cause requirement would be significantly weakened if a court can rely on the recollection of those concerned to support a probable cause finding long after the search warrant has been issued. See Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall's dissent in Christofferson v. Washington, 393 U.S. 1090 , 89 S.Ct. 855 , 21 L.Ed.2d 783 , upon a denial of certiorari."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(T)he magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant was 'credible' or his information 'reliable' " 8 Id. at 114, 84 S.Ct. at 1513-14. In Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 416, 89 S.Ct. 584, 589, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), the Supreme Court further described the first prong: 9 "In the absence of a statement detailing the manner in which the information was gathered, it is especially important that the tip describe the accused's criminal activity in sufficient detail that the magistrate may know that he is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual's general reputation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.