United States v. Colbert’s Empirical Analysis
76 F.3d 773 · 1996
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 3 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Sharrar v. Felsing (1997), 33 Cal. 4th 667 - People v. Celis (2004)
33 federal appellate · 3 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Michigan v. Long · Maryland v. Buie · Lane v. Peterson · United States v. Security Industrial Bank
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“cannot be an articulable basis for a sweep that requires information to justify it in the first place. 20 Id. at 778 (internal citations omitted). The Third Circuit, in a case where the arrestee and all accomplices were already outside the house and in custody when the officers performed a”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the analytical approach taken by the Supreme Court in Buie and this Circuit in Biggs [United States v. Biggs, 70 F.3d 913 , 915-16 (6th Cir.1995),] argues against the adoption of such a bright-line rule. .... We believe that, in some circumstances, an arrest taking place just outside a home may pose an equally serious threat to the arresting officers. In our view, the fact that the arrest takes place outside rather than inside the home affects only the inquiry into whether the officers have a reasonable articulable suspicion that a protective sweep is necessary by reason of a safety threat. We decline to adopt a bright-line rule that prohibits police officers from conducting a protective sweep of a home every time they arrest a defendant outside that home, regardless of the potential danger from other persons inside.”
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.