United States v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
978 F.3d 616 · 1992
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 10 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Ferris v. State (1999), United States v. Fernandez (1994)
51 federal appellate · 10 district · 10 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Florida v. Royer · United States v. Sokolow · United States v. Place · United States v. Jacobsen · Arizona v. Hicks
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[i]t is common knowledge that most citizens ... whether innocent or guilty, when confronted by a law enforcement officer who asks them potentially incriminating questions are likely to exhibit some signs of nervousness.' " U.S. v. Hall, 978 F.2d 616 , 621 n. 4 (10th Cir.1992). Although nervousness is an appropriate factor for consideration within the "totality of the circumstances,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Boykins · Collins v. State““ “While a person’s nervous behavior may be relevant, we are waiy of the objective suspicion supplied by generic claims that a Defendant was nervous or exhibited nervous behavior after being confronted by law enforcement officials, even recognizing that reasonable suspicion may be the sum of noncriminal acts and is based on the totality of circumstances, see Sokolow, 490 U.S. [1,] 7-10, [ 104 L. Ed. 2d 1 , 109 S. Ct. 1581 (1989),]. As we recently observed: “ ‘ “In all search and seizure cases of the type here concerned, the government argues that a defendant’s nervousness, either alone or in conjunction with other factors, supports the contested search or seizure. This repetitive assertion by the Government in all cases of this kind must be treated with caution. It is common knowledge that most citizens . . . whether innocent or guilty, when confronted by a law enforcement officer who asks them potentially incriminating questions are likely to exhibit some signs of nervousness.” [Citations omitted.]’ ” 263 Kan. at 738 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“no prior contact with the [d]efendant with which to compare her behavior, thereby making defendant's nervous appearance to the officers merely a hunch.”
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.