608 F. Supp. 2d 397 - United States v. Singleton’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
April 2015
most recently cited
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Morrissey v. Brewer · Florida v. Royer · Adams v. Williams
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The reliability of information provided by a confidential informant can be established if ‘the person providing the information has a track record of providing reliable information ....' " Warren v. Williams, No. Civ.A. 304CV537, 2006 WL 860998 , at (D.Conn. Mar. 31, 2006) (quoting United States v. Wagner, 989 F.2d 69, 72-73 (2d Cir.1993)). “Typically, and most often in the context of a suppression hearing, an informant’s reliability can be established by testimony by a law enforcement officer regarding previous information learned from an informant.” Warren, 2006 WL 860998 , at (citing United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333, 340 (2d Cir.1992)). Thus, while information from an anonymous informant generally requires some sort of corroboration to be considered reliable, see Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 270-71 , 120 S.Ct. 1375 , 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000), “[w]here informants are known [to the officer], ... a lesser degree of corroboration is required.” United States v. Elmore, 482 F.3d 172, 180 (2d Cir.2007). Indeed, “[t]he veracity of identified private citizen informants (as opposed to paid or professional criminal informants) is generally presumed in the absence of special circumstances suggesting that they should not be trusted.” Id.; see also United States v. Rollins, 522 F.2d 160, 164 (2d Cir.1975) (noting the “peculiar likelihood of accuracy” of a citizen informant’s report); United States v. Smith, 182 F.3d 473, 483 (6th Cir.1999) (“information supplied by an informant of p”
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.