United States v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
670 F.2d 1148 · 1981
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 6 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably United States v. Sharpe (1985), United States v. Riascos-Suarez (1996)
54 federal appellate · 6 district · 48 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Wade · Brinegar v. United States · Beck v. State of Ohio · Chambers v. Mississippi · Roviaro v. United States
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Like confidential informants, hidden observation posts may often prove to be useful law enforcement tools, so long as they remain secret. Just as the disclosure of an informer’s identity may destroy his future usefulness in criminal investigations, the identification of a hidden observation post will likely destroy the future value of that location for police surveillance. The revelation of a surveillance location might also threaten the safety of police officers using the observation post, or lead to adversity for cooperative owners or occupants of the building. Finally, the assurance of nondisclosure of a surveillance location may be necessary to encourage property owners or occupants to allow the police to make such use of their property.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No plausible innocent explanations for this sequence of behavior readily spring to mind, nor has the defendant suggested any, either in this court or in the court below.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because of the distinction between suppression hearings and criminal trials, see note 9 supra, and because of the more extensive procedural protections associated with the latter, our holding does not suggest that the nondisclosure of a police surveillance location would be proper at trial. Indeed, our recognition of a surveillance location privilege is built upon the established informer's privilege, Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed. 2d 639 (1957), and its progeny; this suggests that when identification of the surveillance location `is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused ... the privilege must give way.' 353 U.S. at 60-61 , 77 S.Ct. at 627-628 . That issue, however, is not directly before us, and we make no holding in its regard. [ Id. at n. 14.]”
3 later decisions 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.