United States v. Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis
700 F.3d 934 · 2012
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Mincey v. Arizona · Sedillo v. United States · Arizona v. Hicks · Brigham City v. Stuart
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A warrantless seizure of an object is justified if: “(1) the officer was lawfully present in the place from where he viewed the item, (2) the item was in plain view, and (3) its incriminating nature was ‘immediately apparent.’ ” United States v. Cellitti 387 F.3d 618 , 623 (7th Cir.2004). “For the incriminating nature to be immediately apparent, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the item is contraband or otherwise linked to criminal activity.” Id. at 624 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the government's warrantless trespass onto curtilage is presumptively a Fourth Amendment violation even if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy there.”
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.