3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 18 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Andresen v. Maryland.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Andresen v. Maryland Anchor | green | “in searches for papers, it is certain that some innocuous documents will be examined, at least cursorily, in order to determine whether they are, in fact, among those papers authorized to be seized.” | 10 |
| 2 | United States v. William Riley, Norman Burnett, Jeffrey Sizemore, Vincent Mazza | green | “once a category of seizable papers has been adequately described, with the description delineated in part by an illustrative list of seizable items, the fourth amendment is not violated because the officers executing the warrant must exercise some minimal judgment as to whether …” | 4 |
| 3 | United States v. Shi Yan Liu, A/K/A Simon Liu, Jie Hu and Shao Zhen Lin | green | “the rationale for blanket suppression is that a search that greatly exceeds the bounds of a warrant and is not conducted in good faith is essentially indistinguishable from a general search.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.