United States v. Gomez’s Empirical Analysis
633 F.2d 999 · 1980
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Sharpe (1985), United States v. Terry (1983)
44 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Payton v. New York · United States v. Mendenhall · 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well settled that “a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). An officer need have only a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot before subjecting a person to an investigatory stop. United States v. Vasquez, 612 F.2d 1338, 1342 (2d Cir. 1979). At the same time, however, the officer must be able to articulate the specific and objective facts that form the basis for that reasonable suspicion. United States v. Ariza, 615 F.2d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 1980). •”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““One of the exceptions recognized in this Circuit is the ‘security check’ or ‘protective sweep’ incident to a lawful arrest. When police officers have lawfully entered premises to effect an arrest, they are entitled to make a ‘quick and limited pass through the premises to check for third persons who may destroy evidence or pose a threat to the officers.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A law enforcement officer who has duly announced his authority and who has attempted to stop and question a suspect is not required “to simply shrug his shoulders,” . . . and abandon his investigation .... [T]he officer has the right to detain the suspect against his will. . . . Indeed, the officer “is entitled to make a forcible stop.””
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.