United States v. Pool’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 42 U.S.C. § 14132 (§ 210304 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 14133 (§ 210305 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 14135A · 42 U.S.C. § 14135E
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · United States v. Salerno · Carey v. Piphus
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The judicial or grand jury finding of probable cause within a criminal proceeding is a watershed event which should be viewed differently from mere pre-judicial involvement gathering of evidence. After such a judicial finding, a defendant’s liberty may be greatly restricted-even denied. As part of his pre-trial release, defendant may be deprived of his very liberty; he can be subject to electronic monitoring; he may be ordered to obey a mandatory curfew. Also, the court can order a defendant to refrain from traveling outside of the East ern District of California without prior approval, not to possess a firearm and that he must reside at a location that is reviewed and approved by the Pretrial Services Officer. In a pornography ease he can be directed to not have any communications with a minor without the child’s parent or guardian being present, cannot be found within 100 feet of a schoolyard, park, playground or other place frequented by children, cannot access the internet or possess a computer at his residence without prior approval. These conditions are almost identical to those conditions which can be imposed on a probationer or parolee for whom a DNA testing requirement has been found appropriate under a totality of the circumstances standard. The court finds that an up-front requirement for finding probable cause that the defendant has committed the charged felony places the issue much more closely with those cases utilizing a totality of the circumstances standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. MARIO W. v. Kaipio“[Edmond] involved the search and seizure of motorists on a particular road, [while Ferguson involved) patients being admitted to a hospital. Importantly, there had been no judicial involvement in finding that each specific person to be tested had been involved in criminal wrongdoing. Rather, the government was simply fishing for substantive evidence [to take to] a judge or otherwise commence criminal proceedings. As such, neither the motorists nor the patients could be compelled to give substantive evidence absent special needs beyond the mere general need to enforce the criminal laws. The instant case is worlds apart from that in the above two cited cases — [here] defendant is subject to DNA testing after a judicial finding or grand jury determination of probable cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“after a judicial or grand jury determination of probable cause has been made for felony criminal charges against a defendant, no Fourth Amendment or other Constitutional violation is caused by a universal requirement that a charged defendant ... undergo a `swab test,' or a blood test when necessary, for the purposes of DNA analysis to be used solely for criminal law enforcement, identification purposes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.