United States v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis
628 F.2d 938 · 1980
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2013 · most notably Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Seiter (1988), United States v. Tolbert (1982)
49 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
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. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Stone v. Powell · Boyd 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he fourth amendment does not overlook de minimis intrusions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Tjhere is a clear line of demarcation between, on the one hand, contraband and other items, such as stolen goods, whose possession is illegal, and on the other, goods, whatever their suspected use, whose possession is legal. The narcotics peddler in whose heroin a beeper is planted has no privacy interest in the substance; but the same is not so of legally-possessed substances into which a beeper is placed, even if these are destined later to be used in the commission of a crime.... The rationale of the Government’s argument would authorize warrantless beeper surveillance of laboratory equipment, handguns, or any other legitimately owned item the Government suspected would be used to commit a crime. The fourth amendment contains no such exception. If the Government reasonably suspects non-contraband items will be used for criminal purposes, presumably it can articulate sufficient grounds to convince a neutral magistrate to issue a warrant authorizing beeper surveillance of those items. For fourth amendment purposes, there is a clear distinction between contraband and other property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In essence, the question before the court is whether the law is prepared to recognize as legitimate an individual’s expec tation of privacy with respect to what he does in private with personal property he has a right to possess. The question is its own answer. Beeper surveillance of non-contraband personal property in private areas trenches upon legitimate expectations of privacy and constitutes a search or seizure within the meaning of the fourth amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.