United States v. Mann’s Empirical Analysis
592 F.3d 779 · 2010
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252
Relies on Marron v. United States · Illinois v. Charles McArthur · United States v. Wuagneux · United States v. Carey · United States v. Hill
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Once those files had been flagged, Detective Huff knew (or should have known) that files in a database of known child pornography images would be outside the scope of the warrant to search for images of women in locker rooms— presumably images that Mann himself had captured .... we hold that Officer Huff exceeded the scope of the warrant by opening the four flagged “KFF Alert” files.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the more considered approach 'would be to allow the contours of the plain view doctrine to develop incrementally through the normal course of fact-based adjudication.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Unlike a physical object that can be immediately identified as responsive to the warrant or not, computer files may be manipulated to hide their true contents.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Swing
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.