United States v. Sanchez’s Empirical Analysis
635 F.2d 47 · 1980
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Daye v. Attorney General of New York (1982), United States v. Vasquez (1980)
41 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 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. § 3500 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 8 U.S.C. § 1304 (§ 264 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (§ 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Rakas v. Illinois · Jones v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he finding before us that Sanchez was neither threatened nor intimidated does not in light of the circumstances under which his alleged consent was obtained, establish that his consent was voluntarily given. What is lacking is explicit consideration by the trial judge as to whether or not Sanchez, believing the officers were going to enter regardless of what he said, merely submitted to their authority. We therefore remand to the district court for additional findings of fact and for reconsideration of whether the prosecution carried its burden, in light of the proper standard. If the district court finds, in light of “the totality of all the circumstances,” that Sanchez voluntarily consented to the search, and not that he merely bowed to what he reasonably viewed as the exercise of authority, new judgments of conviction should be entered against Sanchez and Alvarez. If, on the other hand, such a voluntary consent is not found, the motion to suppress the items seized in Sanchez’s apartment should be granted [and] a new trial should be ordered as to Sanchez....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] mere trespasser has no Fourth Amendment protection in premises he occupies wrongfully.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“will look with an exceedingly jaundiced eye upon ... efforts to justify non-production of a Rule 16 or Jencks Act ‘statement’ by reference to a ‘department policy’ or ‘established practice’ or the like”
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.