United States v. Issacs’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.2d 1365 · 1983
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably United States v. Savinovich (1988), United States v. Bagley (1985)
47 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 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 18 U.S.C. § 472 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Simmons v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Rakas v. Illinois · Jones v. United States
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“These cases make clear that when conditions justify an agent in examining a ledger, notebook, journal, or similar item, he or she may briefly peruse writing contained therein, (citations omitted) The justification may arise from “a ‘reasonable suspicion’ to believe the discovered item is evidence,” (citations omitted) or it may arise from the authority conferred by a warrant to search for items that might reasonably be expected to be found within such a book, as here. In either case, the plain view doctrine would permit brief perusal of the book’s contents and, consequently, its seizure if such perusal gives the examining agent probable cause to believe that the book constitutes evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[A] prosecutor may simultaneously maintain that a defendant criminally possessed the seized good, but was not subject to a Fourth Amendment deprivation, without legal contradiction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The government may properly contend that a defendant owned drugs which, moments before the challenged search, he had placed in his girlfriend’s purse, in which he had no legitimate expectation of privacy. See Rawlings [v. Kentucky ], 448 U.S. [98,] 104-06, 100 S.Ct. [2556] 2561-62 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980) ]. It may argue that checks found in the apartment of another in which a defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy belonged to the defendant. See Salvucci, 448 U.S. at 85, 95 , 100 S.Ct. at 2549, 2554 . It may properly seek to introduce evidence seized from a room with which a defendant had no connection beyond mere presence and thus no legitimate expectation of privacy. See United States v. Irizarry, 673 F.2d 554, 556 (1st Cir.1982).”
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.