United States v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
779 F.2d 565 · 1986
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably United States v. Belden (1992), United States v. Laurins (1988)
47 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 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 10 U.S.C. § 374 · 18 U.S.C. § 1385 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United States v. Leon · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · United States v. McConney · Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba · PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because the Posse Comitatus Act and sections 371-378 of Title 10 embody similar proscriptions against military involvement in civil law enforcement, we consider it significant that courts have uniformly refused to apply the exclusionary rule to evidence seized in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act_ [F]or example, the Fifth Circuit held that the extraordinary remedy of exclusion was inappropriate until such time as “widespread and repeated violations” of the Posse Comitatus Act demonstrated the need for such a remedy.... [W]e ... hold that an exclusionary rule should not be applied to violations of 10 U.S.C. §§ 371-378 until a need to deter future violations is demonstrated.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We need not decide that complex and difficult issue because, assuming without deciding that there was a violation, application of an exclusionary rule is not warranted. If this Court should be confronted in the future with widespread and repeated violations of the Posse Comitatus Act an exclusionary rule can be fashioned at that time.”
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.