United States v. Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1542 · 18 U.S.C. § 1544 · 18 U.S.C. § 3501 · 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (§ 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · McNabb v. United States · Mallory v. United States · Dickerson v. United States · Missouri v. Seibert
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Only where a border crossing interrogation has as its purpose the gathering of evidence for a future criminal prosecution is a Miranda warning required.’ United States v. FNU LNU, 261 F.R.D. 1, 3 (E.D.N.Y.2009) (citing Moody, 649 F.2d at 127-28 (holding that where, upon finding a substance described as a ‘caked talcum powder’ on the person of an entrant to the United States, customs agent’s question about the nature of the substance was for the purpose of obtaining evidence for a future criminal prosecution and Miranda warnings were required)). ‘That a defendant’s responses to questions asked as part of a border crossing inquiry may ultimately have some evidentiary value for a future criminal prosecution does not by itself trigger Miranda.’ FNU LNU, 261 F.R.D. at 3 (citing United States v. Mil ler, No. 08-CR-860, 2009 WL 2182382 , at , 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62396 , at (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2009)).”
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.