United States v. Arch’s Empirical Analysis
7 F.3d 1300 · 1993
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2023 · most notably 23 Cal. 4th 529 - People v. Coddington (2000), United States of America v. Clarence Richardson Jr (2000)
28 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
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 Terry v. Ohio · Mincey v. Arizona · Maryland v. Buie · Arizona v. Hicks · Michigan v. Tyler
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because the resolution of such a motion is typically fact-dependent, we must 'give particular deference to the district court that had the opportunity to hear the testimony and observe the demeanor of the witnesses.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“as is normally the case for Fourth Amendment inquiries, the test is objective: 'the government must establish that the circumstances as they appear at the moment of entry would lead a reasonable, experienced law enforcement officer to believe that someone inside the house, apartment, or hotel room required immediate assistance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Buie assumes that the police already are lawfully present in the home to arrest its occupant”). The government does not argue in this case that the search of the apartment was a continuation of Montes' arrest and thus must argue that protective sweeps should be admissible even when the sweep is not made incident to an arrest. We need not address this argument here, however, because the government has not fulfilled its burden of showing that there were”
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.