Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 682 F.3d 448 - United States v. Jackson

United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

682 F.3d 448 · 2012

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
6
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)

Relies on Whren v. United States · Colorado v. Bertine · United States v. Hill · United States v. Edwards · United States v. Coffee

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

  1. ““In order to be deemed valid, an inventory search may not be undertaken for purposes of investigation, and it must be conducted according to standard police procedures.” [Smith, 510 F.3d] at 651 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A general written inventory policy does not grant officers carte blanche when conducting a search; rather, it must be sufficiently tailored to only produce an inventory. [United States v. Tackett, 486 F.3d 230 , 232 (6th Cir. 2007) ]. Thus, “[i]n conducting an inventory search, officers do not enjoy their accustomed discretion; they simply follow the applicable policy.” Id. “Nonetheless, officers may exercise some judgment based on concerns related to the purposes of an inventory search; for example, they may decide to open particular containers if they cannot determine the contents.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “When a legitimate search is underway, and when its purpose and its limits have been precisely defined, nice distinctions between closets, drawers, and containers, in the case of a home, or between glove compartments, upholstered seats, trunks, and wrapped packages, in the case of a vehicle, must give way to the interest in the prompt and efficient completion of the task at hand.” [Bertine, 479 U.S. at 375 , 107 S.Ct. 738 ] (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “h. When any vehicle is left unattended either on public or private property due to the removal of an ill, injured or arrested operator, and cannot be released to another or parked legally or safely, or due to the abandonment thereof by the operator during or immediately after pursuit by a law enforcement officer. An Impound Report is required. [[Image here]] j. When any vehicle has been operated by a person who has been arrested for a violation of ORC 4510.11 Driving under Suspension, 4510.14 Driving While under OVI Suspension, or ORC 4511.203 Wrongful Entrustment of Motor Vehicle, and the vehicle is located upon a public street or other property open to the public for purposes of vehicular travel or parking. (ORC 4510.41) An Impound Report is required.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “simply lifted the already loose flap of carpet that appeared to have been tampered with, based on his reasonable belief that it might be concealing a hiding place for items.”), cert, denied,-U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 370 , 184 L.Ed.2d 219 , (2012); United States v. Edwards, 577 F.2d 883, 894 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc) (”
    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.