United States v. Cuevas-Sanchez’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 248 · 1987
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Vega-Rodriguez v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co. (1997), United States v. Taketa (1991)
28 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 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. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Katz v. United States · Franks v. Delaware · Oliver v. United States · California v. Ciraolo · Russell v. United States
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the judge issuing the warrant must find that “normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous,” 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (3)(c); (2) the warrant must contain “a particular description of the type of [activity] sought to be [videotaped], and a statement of the particular offense to which it relates,” id. § 2518(4)(c); (3) the warrant must not allow the period of [surveillance] to be “longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization, [ ]or in any event longer than thirty days” (though extensions are possible), id. § 2518(5); and (4) the warrant must require that the [surveillance] “be conducted in such a way as to minimize the [videotaping] of [activity] not otherwise subject to [surveillance] ...,” id.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being waiched at any given moment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Cowles v. State“[this type of surveillance provokes an immediate negative visceral reaction: indiscriminate video surveillance raises the spectre of the Orwellian state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Thomas
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.