United States v. Suarez’s Empirical Analysis
906 F.2d 977 · 1990
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably United States v. Lalor (1993), United States v. Blandford (1994)
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · United States v. Leon · Smith v. Maryland · Steagald v. United States · United States v. New York Telephone Co.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“lead a prudent person to believe that the items sought constitute fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of [a] crime and will be present at the time and place of the search.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“privacy and security of communications transmitted by new noncommon carrier communication services or new forms of telecommunications and computer technology.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jackson v. State · Brown v. Waddell““[Section 2518(8)(a)]’s whole premise is that the evidentiary reliability of particular electronic communications can be ensured by two means: (1) their mechanical recordation as received, which ensures their original integrity; followed by (2) the relatively prompt sealing of the mechanical recordation. In this way, the opportunity for human alterations is completely avoided at the point of interception and minimized thereafter. That premise, hence the statute’s intended application, is completely undercut where simultaneous mechanical recordation is impossible, and human alteration made possible in the very act of manual “recordation.” The complete futility of any sealing requirement ... is the best indication that the statute imposes none.””
1 later decision 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.