U.S. v. Hood’s Empirical Analysis
920 F.3d 87 · 2019
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2702 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Katz v. United States · Smith v. Maryland · Minnesota v. Murphy · United States v. Zannino
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Fourth Amendment generally requires that the government obtain a warrant based on probable cause before conducting a search.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[G]iven the location information that CSLI conveyed and the fact that a cell phone user transmits it simply by possessing the cell phone, if the government could access the CSLI that it had acquired without a warrant in that case, then the result would be that "[o]nly the few without cell phones could escape" what would amount to "tireless and absolute surveillance." 8”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“an internet user generates the IP address data ... only by making the affirmative decision to access a website or application.”
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.