124 Md. App. 183 - Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 2016
18 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Wong Sun v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Payton v. New York
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we look only to the record of the suppression hearing, extend deference to the fact finding of the suppression judge, and accept those findings as to disputed issues of fact unless clearly erroneous. See Jones v. State, 343 Md. 448, 457-58 , 682 A.2d 248 (1996); Pryor v. State, 122 Md.App. 671 , 677 n. 4, 716 A.2d 338 (1998); Partee v. State, 121 Md.App. 237, 244 , 708 A.2d 1113 (1998). We also consider those facts that are most favorable to the State as the prevailing party on the motion. Jones, [supra,] 343 Md. at 458 , 682 A.2d 248 ; Partee, [supra,] 121 Md.App. at 244 , 708 A.2d 1113 . We make our own independent constitutional appraisal based on a review of the law as it applies to the facts of the case. Jones, [supra,] 343 Md. at 457 , 682 A.2d 248 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is clear that there are several investigative techniques which may be utilized effectively in the course of a Terry-type stop. The most common is interrogation, which may include both a request for identification and inquiry concerning the suspicious conduct of the person detained but the officer may also or instead conduct a non-search examination of the suspect’s person, car, or objects he is carrying, or may compare the suspect’s shoes with prints at the nearby crime scene.... Sometimes the officer will communicate with others, either police or private citizens, in an effort to verify the explanation tendered, to determine if certain property in possession of the suspect has been stolen, or to confirm the identification or determine whether a person of that identity is otherwise wanted. Or, the suspect may be detained while it is determined if in fact an offense has occurred in the area, a process which might involve checking certain premises or vehicles, locating and examining objects abandoned by the suspect or otherwise lawfully discovered, or talking with other people....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.