United States v. Ryles’s Empirical Analysis
988 F.2d 13 · 1993
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2023
9 federal appellate · 5 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)
Relies on Wong Sun v. United States · Chambers v. Maroney · Michigan v. Long · Illinois v. Rodriguez · Maryland v. Buie
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the particular factual context of the instant case, we do not believe that [the state trooper] would have been unreasonable either in placing his head inside the interior of the van through an open window or in opening the driver’s door and placing his torso inside, even assuming he did not smell marijuana before the intrusion. Our conclusion is based on the reason behind [state trooper’s] actions. After pulling over a van in the wee hours of the morning on a relatively deserted Texas highway, Washington was immediately approached by the driver, who smelled of alcohol and admitted that he had no driver’s license. Even though Ryles was not intoxicated, he still could not lawfully drive the van. At ... Ryles’ own suggestion, [the state trooper] approached the van to inquire whether anyone else in the van was licensed and could drive the vehicle away. Although he did not say so at the suppression hearing, we believe that [the state trooper] would have considered it necessary to determine whether the passenger who would ultimately be driving the van was impaired by alcohol-since, after all, Ryles had alcohol on his breath. Even assuming that he walked up to the driver’s door and opened it without knocking, [the state trooper] would only have been attempt ing to assure that the van would be driven safely. We can hardly say that this would have been unreasonable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We do not intend to suggest that a police officer may in all circumstances constitutionally intrude into the interior of a vehicle simply because he has temporarily lawfully detained the vehicle because of a traffic violation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“intruded inside a space that, under most circumstances, is protected by a legitimate expectation of privacy.”
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.