United States v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
665 F.2d 874 · 1981
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2012
9 federal appellate · 6 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. § 641 (Livestock Fraud Protection Act)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Mincey v. Arizona · South Dakota v. Opperman · United States v. Emens
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““was reasonable because it responded to three legitimate needs: ‘the protection of the owner’s property while it remains in police custody, ... the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, ... and the protection of the police from potential danger.’ Opperman, supra, 428 U.S. at 369 , 96 S.Ct. at 3097 . The [Opperman ] Court found that the police followed ‘standard police procedures’ in conducting the inventory search, id. at 376 , 90 S.Ct. at 3100, a factor that tends to limit the scope of the ‘intrusion’ to the extent "necessary to carry out ‘[a] caretaking function,’ id. at 375, 96 S.Ct. at 3100 , and to prevent arbitrary police conduct. “The steps taken by [the police officer], like those in Opperman , were in response to legitimate needs. Although Scott’s car was legally parked, Scott’s arrest by the police had left his property unsecured. Even though the car was not in police custody and even though the police may have had no duty to secure Scott’s belongings, the police procedures to protect the arrestee’s belongings were appropriate caretaking functions. This is especially true here where [the police officer] had assured Scott that he would lock his vehicle. Furthermore, the procedures protected the police against charges of dishonesty or negligence that might have arisen had the arrestee’s property disappeared. The intrusions necessary to secure Scott’s property were therefore reasonable. See United States v. Prazak 500 F.2d 12”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Young v. State
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.