United States v. Procopio’s Empirical Analysis
88 F.3d 21 · 1996
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 16 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably United States v. Frazier (2005), United States v. Martin (2002)
57 federal appellate · 16 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Olano · Illinois v. Gates · Bruton v. United States · United States v. Leon
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he focus in a warrant application is usually on whether the suspect committed a crime and whether evidence of the crime is to be found at his home or business. That hardly makes the address unimportant: to invade the wrong location is a serious matter. But so long as the affidavit itself asserts a link between the suspect and the address, it is easy to understand how both the officer applying for the warrant and the magistrate might overlook a lack of detail on a point often established by the telephone book or the name on a mailbox.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In this instance, the [affidavit underlying the second search warrant] recited that agent Downes had advised that he was “at Bernard Riley’s address at 81 Inter-vale ____” Thus, the affidavit included the agent’s assertion that the address to be searched (81 Intervale) was that of suspect (Riley) as to whom probable cause had been shown; the only omission was the failure to explain how the agent — who had ample basis for the contention — knew that “81 Intervale” was “Kiley’s address.” Whether or not this is a defect in the application, it is hardly blatant, nor is there any suggestion (or basis for a suggestion) or actual bad faith. Thus, we conclude that Leon applies.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The fact that the defense did not object also may suggest that, in the conditions of the courtroom, the passage in question passed by as mere rhetoric.”
2 later decisions 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.