Naugle v. Witney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It would seem highly anomalous for this court to allow the admission of evidence obtained pursuant to the valid portion of this Warrant in a criminal trial while holding defendants civilly liable for the search and seizure of that same evidence. The fourth amendment is not applied with zero-sum force in the criminal context, and the court knows no compelling policy reasons why it should be so applied in the civil context. Deterrence of police conduct violative of the fourth amendment, the prime justification for the exclusionary rule, is not undermined by the severance doctrine because evidence seized pursuant to the invalid part of the warrant still is excluded. Similarly, in the civil context, police overreaching is deterred by the liability that may be imposed for that portion of the search conducted pursuant to the unconstitutional part of the warrant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ewing v. City of Stockton

2. “surveillance equipment including electronic listening and recording devices, cameras, binoculars, radios, telephone hardware and records.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Naugle

3. “letters, papers, documents, checks or envelopes,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Naugle