United States v. Stone’s Empirical Analysis
659 F.2d 569 · 1981
Citation profile
36 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably United States v. Alfonso (1985), United States v. Adams (1993)
36 federal appellate ·
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. § 2 · 19 U.S.C. § 1581 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Carroll v. United States · Boyd v. United States · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Almeida-Sanchez v. United States · United States v. Ramsey
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n no case has a border search been invalidated because the object’s departure from foreign soil was not demonstrated. Instead, a legion of cases have made clear that the propriety of a border search rests on the “critical fact” of whether or not a border crossing has occurred: The critical fact is that the envelopes crossed the border and entered this country ... It is their entry from without that makes a resulting search “reasonable.” United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 , 620, 97 S.Ct. 1972 , 1981, 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977) (emphasis added). United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 147 , 155 (5th Cir.1979).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A border search need not take place at the actual border. It may be conducted at a place considered ‘the functional equivalent of their border,’ such as the port where a ship docks in this country after entering our territorial waters from aboard.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where an airplane or, for that matter, a person, vessel, object or vehicle has been sighted over foreign land, air or water and has been monitored continuously thereafter as it crosses the boundary of this country, its inspection by Customs at the first point it touches land is fully valid as a border search. Neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is necessary to validate such a search. Its justification derives from the single fact that the boundary of the United States has been crossed, since”
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.