United States v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.3d 357 · 2010
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2258A · 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 42 U.S.C. § 13032 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Communications Decency Act § 230)
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · United States v. Leon · Ornelas v. United States · United States v. Nixon
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This consensus rests on the widespread view among the courts — in accord with Agent White’s affidavit — that "collectors and distributors of child pornography value their sexually explicit materials highly, ‘rarely if ever’ dispose of such material, and store it ‘for long periods’ in a secure place, typically in their homes.” United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742 , 746 (9th Cir.1997); see United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004 , 1008 (7th Cir.2007) (rejecting challenge to probable cause where three months elapsed between the crime and issuance of the warrant where agent testified child pornographers retain their collected materials for long periods of time); United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065 , 1072 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) (concluding that "[t]he details provided on the use of computers by child pornographers and the collector profile” provided support for a finding of probable cause); United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852 , 861 (10th Cir.2005) (finding probable cause based, in part, on "the observation that possessors often keep electronic copies of child pornography”); United States v. Lemon, 590 F.3d 612 , 615 (8th Cir.2010) ("Many courts, including our own, have given substantial weight to testimony from qualified law enforcement agents about the extent to which pedophiles retain child pornography.”), cert, denied, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3305 , 176 L.Ed.2d 1206 (2010); United States v. Morales-Aldahondo, 524 F.3d 115 , 119 (1st Cir.2008) (holding that three-year delay ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Our duty 'is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Many courts, including our own, have given substantial weight to testimony from qualified law enforcement agents about the extent to which pedophiles retain child pornography.”), cert, denied, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3305 , 176 L.Ed.2d 1206 (2010); United States v. Morales-Aldahondo, 524 F.3d 115 , 119 (1st Cir.2008) (holding that three-year delay between acquisition of child pornography and application for warrant did not render supporting information stale since”
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.