Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 870 F.2d 536 - United States of America v. Rocco Richard Desantis

United States of America v. Rocco Richard Desantis’s Empirical Analysis

870 F.2d 536 · 1989

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
7
states following
March 2020
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably United States v. Mobley (1994), Cooper v. Dupnik (1991)

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions

21019891990200020102020decided

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) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Oregon v. Elstad · Hannahville Indian Community 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he [Supreme] Court has made clear that the "prohibition on further questioning —like other aspects of Miranda —is not itself required by the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on coerced confessions, but is instead justified only by reference to its prophylactic purpose." Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 528 , 107 S.Ct. 828, 831 , 93 L.Ed.2d 920 [1987] (citing Quarles ). The same considerations that allow the police to dispense with providing Miranda warnings in a public safety situation also would permit them to dispense with the prophylactic safeguard that forbids initiating further questioning of an accused who requests counsel.... ... Society's need to procure the information about the location of a dangerous weapon is as great after, as it was before, the request for counsel.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[t]he same considerations that allow the police to dispense with providing Miranda warning in a public safety situation also would permit them to dispense with the prophylactic safeguard that forbids initiating further questioning of an accused who requests counsel.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.”
    2 later decisions 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.