United States v. Ocampo’s Empirical Analysis
650 F.2d 421 · 1981
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Texas v. Brown (1983), United States v. Maldonado-Rivera (1990)
34 federal appellate · 8 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. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Adams v. Williams · Chambers v. Maroney
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The piece of tape sealing the paper bag in the back of [the defendant’s] car did not transform the bag into a closed container subject to Chadwick-Sanders-Dien protection. Agent Mockler was able readily to identify its contents as wrapped currency simply by feeling the outside of the bag. Nor did the container appear to be of a type used for personal effects. Under the circumstances no expectation of privacy, judged by objective and reasonable standards, existed. United States v. Mannino, supra, 635 F.2d at 114. Where the contents of a container are easily discernible by frisking the exterior of a package, there is little likelihood that the owner could reasonably expect any sustantial degree of privacy. Under such circumstances it would be a pointless formality to require that the agents first obtain a warrant before examining the contents. Accordingly, we hold that the bag’s contents could be examined under what amounts to a “plain feel” version of the “plain view” doctrine. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“if only one conspiracy has been alleged and proved the defendants are not entitled to a multiple conspiracy charge,”
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.