United States v. Berry’s Empirical Analysis
670 F.2d 583 · 1982
Citation profile
195 federal appellate · 5 district · 83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 331 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably 93 Ohio App. 3d 586 - State v. Retherford (1994), 222 Ill. 2d 530 - People v. Luedemann (2006)
195 federal appellate · 5 district · 83 state decisions — followed in 24 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 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 844 (§ 404 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Glasser v. United States · Wong Sun v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
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 331 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"communication between police and citizens involving no coercion or detention and therefore without the compass of the Fourth Amendment, brief 'seizures' that must be supported by reasonable suspicion, and full-scale arrests that must be supported by probable cause."”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[s]tatements which intimate that an investigation has focused on a specific individual easily could induce a reasonable person to believe that failure to cooperate would lead only to formal detention.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"[T]he profile is nothing more than an administrative tool of the police. The presence or absence of a particular characteristic on any particular profile is of no legal significance in the determination of reasonable suspicion. * * * * * * A profile does not focus on the particular circumstances at issue. Nor does such a profile indicate in every case that a specific individual who happens to match some of the profile's vague characteristics is involved in actions sufficiently suspicious to justify a stop. * * * * * * If an officer can demonstrate why some factor, interpreted with due regard for the officer's experience and not merely in light of its presence on the profile, was, in the particular circumstance of the facts at issue, of such import as to support a reasonable suspicion that an individual was involved in drug smuggling, we do not believe that a court should downgrade the importance of that factor merely because it happens to be a part of the profile. Our holding is only that we will assign no characteristic greater or lesser weight merely because the characteristic happens to be present on, or absent from, the profile."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.