United States v. Rich’s Empirical Analysis
992 F.2d 502 · 1993
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably United States v. Asta M. Elliott (1997), United States v. Crain (1994)
27 federal appellate · 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
Relies on United States v. Ross · Illinois v. Rodriguez · Florida v. Jimeno · Grogan v. Garner · United States v. Espinosa
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... it is not necessary for an officer to specifically use the term “search” when he requests consent from an individual to search a vehicle. We hold that any words, when viewed in context, that objectively communicate to a reasonable individual that the officer is requesting permission to examine the vehicle and its contents constitute a valid search request for Fourth Amendment purposes. Thus, in light of the factual circumstances in this case, we hold that [the trooper’s] request to have “a look in” Rich’s truck effectively communicated to Rich that [the trooper] was asking to search the vehicle.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even if Rich was unable to see what was going on, ... we are unwilling to ... hold ... that enforcement officials must conduct all searches in plain view of the suspect”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“his pick-up truck. The defendant in Rich argued that this language allowed the officer to conduct a visual inspection only, but the court stated that it 19 decline[d] the defendant's invitation to establish a list of specific terms from which an officer must select the most appropriate for each individual situation and/or defendant. To so hamper law enforcement officials in their everyday duties would be an unjustifiable extension of the Fourth Amendment's requirement that searches be”
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.