United States v. Daniel’s Empirical Analysis
982 F.2d 146 · 1993
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Fitzgerald v. State (2004), United States v. Kennedy (1997)
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 11 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Illinois v. Gates · Wong Sun v. United States · Rakas v. Illinois · United States v. Place
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“which targets packages based on certain traits encountered in the vast majority of mailings discovered to contain drugs. These characteristics include: (1) the size and shape of the mailing; (2) whether the package is taped to seal all openings; (3) whether the mailing labels are handwritten; (4) whether the return address is suspicious (e.g., the return addressee and the return address do not match, or the return address is fictitious); (5) unusual odors coming from the package; (6) whether the city of origin and/or city of destination of the package are common”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Like the Lux court, we believe that while any one of these factors standing alone might not provide reasonable suspicion, an aggregate of factors passes muster under the Terry doctrine.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[There is a] distinction between an individual’s privacy interest in the interior and exterior of his bags---- [A] passenger has a reasonable expectation of privacy that the contents of his luggage will not be exposed absent consent or a search warrant. This reasonable expectation of privacy, however, does not extend to the airspace around the luggage.”
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.