Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 594 F.2d 86 - United States v. Williams

United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

594 F.2d 86 · 1979

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
states following
November 2001
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2001

19 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

1601979198019902000decided

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. § 1351 · 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3148 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3150 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3156 (§ 201 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 18 U.S.C. § 401 · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Stone v. Powell · Draper v. United States

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

  1. “No proper deterrent effect is accomplished by the suppression of the evidence in this case. Field officers are seldom trained as legal technicians. Even those who are may have mistakenly thought that Officer Markonni’s arrest was proper. Since the officer whose future actions are to be affected will not realize his actions are wrongful when he is compelled to make a quick decision in an apparently valid arrest situation which complicated legal analysis may later establish to be invalid, we cannot expect him to be deterred. If today’s ruling does serve as any sort of deterrent, it may have the deleterious effect of making the officer on the line overcautious to act in a situation where proper and reasonable instinct tells him that the activity he observes is criminal. If he hesitates to act lest he later be criticized for denying to the process of justice evidence of crime, we have hindered, not furthered, the interests of justice. Unless an officer knows or should know his activities transgress the bounds of law, the evidence discovered by such activity ought not be suppressed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “(a) Any person charged with an offense, other than an offense punishable by death, shall, at his appearance before a judicial officer, be ordered released pending trial on his personal recognizance or upon the execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the judicial officer, unless the officer determines, in the exercise of his discretion, that such a release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required. When such a determination is made, the judicial officer shall, either in lieu of or in addition to the above methods of release, impose the first of the following conditions of release which will reasonably assure the appearance of the person for trial or, if no single condition gives that assurance, any combination of the following conditions: * * * * * * (2) place restrictions on the travel, association, or place of abode of the person during the period of release . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Any officer or employee of the Drug Enforcement Administration designated by the Attorney General may— ****** (3) make arrests without warrant (A) for any offense against the United States committed in his presence, or (B) for any felony, cognizable under the laws of the United States, if he has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony .”
    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.