United States v. Leon’s Empirical Analysis
766 F.2d 77 · 1985
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 26 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably United States v. Hurtado (1985), United States v. Portes (1985)
18 federal appellate · 26 district · 2 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. § 3141 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3145 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 951 (Controlled Substances Import and Export Act)
Relies on Kahm v. United States · United States v. Jessup · United States v. Delker · United States v. Acevedo-Ramos
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) Release on conditions. — (1) If the judicial officer determines that the release described in subsection (b) of this section will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community, such judicial officer shall order the pretrial release of the person— (A) subject to the condition that the person not commit a Federal, State, or local crime during the period of release and subject to the condition that the person cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample from the person if the collection of such a sample is authorized pursuant to section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a); and (B) subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that such judicial officer determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, which may include the condition that the person— (iv) abide by specified restrictions on personal associations, place of abode, or travel; (v) avoid all contact with an alleged victim of the crime and with a potential witness who may testify concerning the offense; (vi) report on a regular basis to a designated law enforcement agency, pretrial services agency, or other agency; (vii) comply with a specified curfew; (viii) refrain from possessing a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon; In any case that involves a minor victim under s”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“rebuttable presumption ... that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the [defendant] as required and the safety of the community.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime ... [that] involves a minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or destructive device; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person, including — (A) the person’s character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and (B) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State, or local law; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release.”
3 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.