United States v. Hare’s Empirical Analysis
589 F.2d 1291 · 1979
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 4 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably United States v. Walters (1981), United States v. Bonds (1993)
60 federal appellate · 4 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 14 U.S.C. § 89 · 18 U.S.C. § 3105 · 21 U.S.C. § 878 (§ 508 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 5557
Relies on Katz v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Sedillo v. United States · Cardwell v. Lewis · United States v. Bolts
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in this context means that the police must be without probable cause to believe evidence would be discovered until they actually observe it in the course of an otherwise-justified search. There are many times when a police officer may”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage““There is perhaps, as the district court found, a hint of subterfuge here; a suggestion that the DEA was using ATF to gain access to a residence which they could not search on their own. But criminal investigations are not a game, and the DEA doesn’t lose simply because it did not earn all of its points itself. This was clearly a serious, valid investigation on the part of the ATF of suspected gun-running; there is absolutely no evidence that the warrant and search for weapons was a pretense fabricated to mask the DEA’s lack of probable cause.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““We believe that the warrant authorized only the local officers to enter and search the Sanchez property for narcotics. It could not be used to validate the entrance of a federal officer having both probable cause and the opportunity to obtain a search warrant to search for different items of property. On the facts of this case, there were two simultaneous but distinct intrusions, each conducted by separate agencies for the purpose of securing different types of property. Each search had to be authorized independently by a separate warrant unless the warrant requirement was excused by a valid exception ... [the federal agent] chose to ignore the warrant requirement and to enter the premises with local officers who were conducting a search for unrelated property. Such action circumvents the safeguards of the federal Constitution.””
4 later decisions 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.