Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 821 F.2d 168 - United States v. Reyes

United States v. Reyes’s Empirical Analysis

821 F.2d 168 · 1987

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
August 2018
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2018

8 federal appellate · 1 district ·

801987199020002010decided

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

Relies on United States v. Sharpe · New Jersey v. T. L. O. · United States v. Montoya De Hernandez · Town of Mashpee v. Mashpee Tribe · Public Broadcasting Service v. Network Project

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We hold that the detention of a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception if customs agents, considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect that the traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal. The “reasonable suspicion” standard has been applied in a number of contexts and effects a needed balance between private and public interests when law enforcement officials must make a limited intrusion on less than probable cause. It thus fits well into the situations involving alimentary canal smuggling at the border: this type of smuggling gives no external signs and inspectors will rarely possess probable cause to arrest or search, yet governmental interests in stopping smuggling at the border are high indeed. Under this standard, officials at the border must have a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person” of alimentary canal smuggling.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.