United States v. Bracamontes’s Empirical Analysis
614 F.3d 813 · 2010
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Pennsylvania v. Mimms · Illinois v. Caballes · United States of America v. $404,905.00 in United States Currency · United States v. Peralez · United States v. Fuse
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘A constitutionally permissible traffic stop can become unlawful . . . “if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete” its purpose.’ [Citations omitted.] “ ‘To continue to detain a vehicle’s occupants after the initial stop is completed, the officer must have been aware of particularized, objective facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant suspicion that a crime is being committed.’ [Citation omitted.]” United States v. Bracamontes, 614 F.3d 813, 816 (8th Cir. 2010).”
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.