Doucette v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" 'The Fourth Amendment comes into play only if the police have made a "seizure." "[I]nterrogation relating to one's identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure." I.N.S. v. Delgado , 466 U.S. 210 , 104 S.Ct. 1758 , 1762, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984).... Not every encounter between an individual and a police officer is a seizure. Florida v. Royer , 460 U.S. 491 , 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319 , 1324, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) ; United States v. Mendenhall , 446 U.S. 544 , 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870 , 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980) ; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte , 428 U.S. 543 , 556, 96 S.Ct. 3074 , 3082, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976).' " Worthy v. State , 473 So.2d 634 , 636 (Ala.Crim.App.1985). '[C]haracterizing every street encounter between a citizen and the police as a "seizure," while not enhancing any interest secured by the Fourth Amendment, would impose wholly unrealistic restrictions upon a wide variety of legitimate law enforcement practices.' United States v. Mendenhall , 446 U.S. 544 , 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870 , 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. T.D.F. v. State · 264 So. 3d 108 - T.D.F. v. State

2. “" State v. Foreman , 133 N.C.App. 292 , 515 S.E.2d 488 (1999), quoting State v. Farmer , 333 N.C. 172 , 187, 424 S.E.2d 120 , 129 (1993), quoting in turn United States v. Mendenhall , 446 U.S. 544 , 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870 , 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980). ' Mendenhall establishes that the test for existence of a "show of authority" is an objective one: not whether the citizen perceived that he was being ordered to restrict his movement, but whether the officer's words and actions would have conveyed that to a reasonable person.' California v. Hodari D. , 499 U.S. 621 , 628, 111 S.Ct. 1547 , 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. T.D.F. v. State · 264 So. 3d 108 - T.D.F. v. State

3. “" ' "[I]f an officer merely walks up to a person standing or sitting in a public place (or, indeed, who is seated in a vehicle located in a public place) and puts a question to him, this alone does not constitute a seizure." ' "”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. T.D.F. v. State · 264 So. 3d 108 - T.D.F. v. State