United States v. Dass’s Empirical Analysis
849 F.2d 414 · 1988
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably United States v. Stabile (2011), United States of America v. Michael Francis Lafrance, et al. (1989)
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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
Relies on United States v. Place · United States v. Jacobsen · Steagald v. United States · United States v. Jeffers · Colorado v. Bertine
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e reject the government’s argument that it did not benefit from the delay. The police established probable cause at the moment of the dog sniff; therefore, it argues, the government’s “constitutional position” did not change as the seizure continued. Such a contention undercuts two goals of the fourth amendment — deterring unreasonable police behavior and judicial determination of probable cause. The government’s theory would allow an unlimited period of seizure without judicial intervention; to accept its argument would nullify the seizure portion of the search and seizure clause of the fourth amendment. This we will not do.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The rule of our decisions certainly is not that first-class mail can be detained 29 hours after mailing in order to obtain the search warrant needed for its inspection. We only hold that on the facts of this case — the nature of the mailings, their suspicious character, the fact that there were two packages going to separate destinations, the unavoidable delay in contacting the more distant of the two destinations, the distance between Mt. Vernon and Seattle — a 29 hour delay between the mailings and the service of the warrant cannot be said to be “unreasonable” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.' Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. at 253, 90 S.Ct. at 1032-33 (emphasis added).... Thus, Van Leeuwen compels us to review each case to determine whether the delay was unreasonable in light of all the facts and circumstances confronting the government. By creating a rigid outer limit for determining whether a delay is reasonable, the majority has failed to address the totality of the circumstances that caused the delay, contrary to the instruction of the Supreme Court in Van Leeuwen.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.