United States v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis
726 F.2d 339 · 1984
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably United States v. McLernon (1984), United States v. Pritchard (1984)
35 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1708 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 2314
Relies on Franks v. Delaware · United States v. Ross · Texas v. Brown · Andresen v. Maryland · Thomas 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) the initial intrusion which afforded the authorities the plain view was lawful; (2) the discovery of the evidence was inadvertent; and (3) the incriminating nature of the evidence was immediately apparent.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A search warrant must describe the objects of the search with reasonable specificity, but need not be elaborately detailed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even if “proof of residency” as the object of a search were vague and over-broad, however, only that much of the June 5, 1979, warrant would fail. The search for cocaine would remain valid as stated with sufficient particularity and severable from any invalid search. While a search for “proof of residency” may have sparked the officers’ interest in the portfolio full of envelopes and papers, the search for cocaine equally could have prompted a look into the portfolio. A search for drugs justifies entry into containers where the drugs would fit and might reasonably be found.... Because the search for cocaine was lawful, seizure of the other items may be analyzed under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement and need not be justified under the “proof of residency” part of the search warrant.”
2 later decisions 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.