United States v. Thomson’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 2017
2 district ·
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. § 2 · 31 U.S.C. § 5322 · 50 U.S.C. § 1801 (§ 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) · 50 U.S.C. § 1802 (§ 102 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) · 50 U.S.C. § 1803 (§ 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) · 50 U.S.C. § 1804 (§ 104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) · 50 U.S.C. § 1805 (§ 105 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) · 50 U.S.C. § 1806 (§ 106 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Russell · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Scott v. United States · Hampton 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in intelligence as in law enforcement, leads must be followed. Especially in counterintelligence cases where often trained professional foreign intelligence personnel are involved, a lead which initially ends in a “dry hole” can hardly be considered a dead issue, although it may be temporarily shelved to divert limited resources to other leads. Therefore, this committee intends that a significant degree of latitude be given in counterintelligence and counterterrorism cases with respect to the retention of information and the dissemination of information between and among counterintelligence components of the Government.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As the courts have noted in construing [existing electronic surveillance law] “it is ... obvious that no electronic surveillance can be so conducted that innocent conversations can be totally eliminated.” United States v. Bynum, 485 F.2d 490, 500 (2d Cir.1973).... Absent a charge that the minimization procedures have been disregarded completely, the test of compliance is “whether a good faith effort to minimize was attempted.” United States v. Armocida, 515 F.2d 29, 44 (3d Cir.1975).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information.”
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.