United States v. George L. Carson’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 703 (Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 3731
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe · Mitchell v. Overman · Kirtland v. J. Ray McDermott & Co.
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.
“[D]efendant's consent purged the second search of any taint from the first search and validated the second search for Fourth Amendment purposes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Q. What occurred when the two of them came to the pickup? 12 A. We stood around talking a little bit, and just visiting. Mr. Branick said, well George, he said, I want to tell you that I think you shot too many doves and I couldn't believe it. I thought, uh, oh, here we go again. So I asked him, I said what makes you think that? And he said because I saw some feathers and some blood and something else, he said, sticking in some weeds or something, which I never did see, quite frankly. 13 Q. Did he tell you at that time he had searched your bucket? 14 A. No, he did not. 15 Q. Okay, what else did he say? 16 A. Well, he asked again, Mr. Branick asked if he could ... if they could look into my pickup and I said, well certainly.... 17 Q. What happened then? 18 A. We got back to the ... the pickup where the vehicles were. I unlocked the truck on the driver's side. I reached across the passenger side and got the bucket and brought it out toward the rear of my pickup and set it on the ground. Mr. Sonntag then proceeded to take the freshly killed undressed doves off the top of the hunting jackets, laid them on the ground. Then he lifted out two hunting jackets, then lifted off the plastic bag.... 19 Q. Now, in regard to the doves, how many dressed doves were there? 20 A. There were 12.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is possible that “but for” the first search the police would not have taken the car, would not have taken the defendant into custody, and would not have conducted the second search which yielded the challenged evidence. However, assuming, but not deciding, that the first search was illegal, we hold that the evidence gained as a result of the second search, the only evidence of which the defendant complains, was admissible. This is so because the voluntary consent of the defendant to the second search, found by the district court and affirmed by this Court, was an independent act sufficient to break the causal connection between the alleged primary illegality and the evidence found as a result of the second search and admitted at trial. The consent not only, as discussed above, served to validate the second search for Fourth Amendment purposes but also purged the second search of the “primary taint.””
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.