Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 582 F.3d 1192 - United States v. Roach

United States v. Roach’s Empirical Analysis

582 F.3d 1192 · 2009

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
2
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably United States v. Burke (2011), United States v. Yeley-Davis (2011)

16 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

390200920102020decided

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. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · United States v. Leon · Franks v. Delaware · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al.

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

  1. “checking for utilities information, driver's license records, real estate records, Wichita Police Department records, tax records, social security records, U.S. Postal Service records, interviews and/or surveillance.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]t would not be entirely unreasonable, therefore, for officers executing the warrant to rely on the magistrate's authorization of it.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he dearth of cases in our circuit holding that particular information was so stale as to vitiate probable cause, an officer with reasonable knowledge of the law might have concluded, until today, that [the defendant’s] decade-long involvement in gang-related crimes logically meant that he would continue to be involved in such crimes and to retain evidence of them at his residence. Moreover, the affidavit demonstrated that many of his past associates continued to be involved in such crimes, which adds at least some weight to such a conclusion.... We conclude that the officers’ reliance was in good faith despite the staleness of the evidence.”
    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.