United States v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Exigency, however, does not exist by mere supposition. Stating a belief that these men were about to destroy evidence after safely arriving at the [motel] and checking into their room, seemingly without knowledge that they were being tracked by law enforcement, is quite speculative. And, as noted, [an officer’s] subjective belief is not determinative in our analysis. “[Instead, t]his court must look objectively at what a reasonable police officer would believe[,]” given the objective facts at the officer’s disposal at the time of entry.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 959 F. Supp. 2d 1205 - United States v. Castro

2. “There is no evidence supporting the inference that these men knew the police were tracking them at all, which might lend credence to that line of reasoning as it relates to the imminent destruction of evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Evans v. Commonwealth

3. “the verbal, visual, or aural equivalent of, 'The police are here, destroy the drugs'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Iwai