Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 633 F.2d 1282 - United States v. Allen

United States v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

633 F.2d 1282 · 1980

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
8
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably United States v. Hensel (1983), United States v. Lace (1982)

18 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions

3001980199020002010decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois · Dunaway v. New York

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

  1. “... The Allen Ranch is virtually on the United States sea-coast border ... and Coast Guard helicopters routinely traversed the nearby air space for several reasons, including law enforcement. The residents of the Allen Ranch would, no doubt, have been aware of these routine flights and any reasonable person, cognizant of the ranch’s proximity to the coastline and the Coast Guard’s well-known function of sea-coast patrol and surveillance, could expect that government officers conducting such flights would be aided by sophisticated electronic equipment. As such, the residents could not reasonably bear a subjective expectation of privacy from the Coast Guard’s airborne telephotographic scrutiny, particularly where, as here, the objects observed were large scale modifications of the Allen Ranch landscape and barn.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he [c]ourt cannot countenance the potentially unlimited duration of this type of surveillance [location beepers]. Citizens have a right to think that the government will not track them for months on end by resort to the latest electronic gadgetry.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “They have no basis, however, to advance as error any alleged violation of the Northern District of California's Random Assignment Plan unless they can show actual prejudice.”
    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.