United States v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
956 F.2d 843 · 1992
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 8 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · most notably United States v. Kennedy (1994), United States v. Spikes (1998)
72 federal appellate · 8 district · 13 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. § 3109 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 879 (§ 509 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Katz v. United States · United States v. Leon · Mapp v. Ohio · Payton v. New York
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e do not read these decisions to mean that federal law governs all aspects of the admissibility in federal prosecutions of evidence independently acquired by state officers. Rather, they are based upon the proposition that, “States are not free to impose on Federal courts requirements more strict than those of the Federal laws or Constitution.” Assuming, then, no violation of the Fourth Amendment ..., we come to the narrow question at issue here— when state officers, acting totally without federal involvement, seize evidence that is later offered in a federal prosecution, must that evidence be excluded if the no-knock entry violated § 3109, 4 a federal statute that is more restrictive than the Fourth Amendment? We agree with the majority of federal courts that have declined to apply § 3109 in this situation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“evidence seized by state officers in conformity with the Fourth Amendment will not be suppressed in a federal prosecution because state law was violated.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct. This is not a case in which the state officers intentionally violated a federal statute that governed their conduct. Here, § 3109 was irrelevant to Officer Terrell and the County Court judge at the time the warrant issued; they were acting under a state search warrant statute to investigate possible violations of state law. The high social cost of the exclusionary rule — “The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered,” as Justice Carodozo succinctly put it— requires that it have no application to situations where the constable has not blundered. “[A]ny rule of evidence that denies the jury access to clearly probative and reliable evidence ... must be carefully limited to the circumstances in which it will pay its way by deterring official lawlessness.””
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.