United States v. Rome’s Empirical Analysis
809 F.2d 665 · 1987
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 2016
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Leon · United States v. Ventresca · Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Gibbons · Rust v. Johnson · United States v. DeLuna
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Search and Seizure "(2) . . .. "(A) General Rule. If the circumstances make it reasonable to dispense with a written affidavit, a Federal magistrate may issue a warrant based upon sworn oral testimony communicated by telephone . . .. "(D) Recording and Certification of Testimony. When a caller informs the Federal magistrate that the purpose of the call is to request a warrant, the Federal magistrate shall immediately place under oath each person whose testimony forms a basis of the application and each person applying for that warrant. If a voice recording device is available, the Federal magistrate shall record by means of such device all of the call after the caller informs the . . . magistrate that the purpose of the call is to request a warrant. Otherwise a stenographic or longhand verbatim record shall be made. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Unless there is a clear constitutional violation, non-compliance with Rule 41 [of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] requires suppression of evidence only where (1) there was 'prejudice' in the sense that the search might not have occurred or would not have been so abrasive if the rule had been followed, or (2) there is evidence of intentional and deliberate disregard of a provision in the rule."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We do not condone careless police work and lack of preparation, nor do we hold that the failure to understand the rules governing their conduct will excuse law enforcement officers from compliance therewith. We simply hold that in this case, [the peace officer and magistrate] complied with the spirit, if not the letter, of Rule 41(c)@Q).”
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.