United States v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
103 F.3d 90 · 1996
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably United States v. Newton (2004), Walker v. City of Orem (2006)
14 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 state decisions — followed in 10 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
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Ornelas v. United States · Michigan v. Summers · Ingraham v. Wright
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may draw guns and use handcuffs during a Terry stop”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Here, the police’s legitimate law enforcement interest in preventing flight in the event that incriminating evidence was found was far more attenuated than in Summers. Unlike the defendant in Summers, who was present where the search warrant was executed, Edwards did not know-prior to being stopped—that any warrant was being executed. He thus had no reason to flee. The police knew the address of Edwards’s Denver residence, and had no reason to believe that he would not return to it, or to 1001 Revere Street. Further, after completing the Terry stop, the police could have “tailed” Edwards had they then let him go. Neither of the latter two Summers interests were served in any way by Edwards’s extended detention. First, the police quickly determined that Edwards posed no risk of harm to them. Second, and in contrast to the defendant in Summers, Edwards’s streetside detention played no part in facilitating the orderly completion of a search being conducted three blocks away---- [H]is detention served no “facilitating” purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stanford v. State“was illegally arrested during the approximately thirty minutes between the time when the police completed their [fifteen minute] ` Terry search' of his person and vehicle, and the time when the discovery of [a drug lab at the residence] gave rise to probable cause for [his] arrest.”
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.