143 Md. App. 670 - Carter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a stopee’s freedom of movement is most definitely restricted under the command of law. If he attempts to leave after being ordered, perhaps at gunpoint, to stop, he may be shot or otherwise forcibly restrained. Such consequences, notwithstanding the appellant’s urging to the contrary, do not ipso facto transform a Terry-stop into an arrest.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Reid v. State · 161 Md. App. 461 - Smith v. State

2. “Once a reasonable time for the processing of a traffic charge has expired, even a minimal further delay to accom,modate the arrival of a drug-sniffing canine is not permitted. That foreclosure is for the obvious reason that the dog sniff, however valuable it might be for other investigative purposes, does not in any way serve the purpose of the justifying traffic stop. Once the purpose of the traffic stop has been fully and reasonably served, no further detention is permitted.... When, by contrast, the energizing articulable suspicion is that a violation of the drug laws may be afoot, the time constrictions on the Terry-stop are very different. The bringing of a drug-sniffing canine to the scene is in the direct service of that investigative purpose and the measure of reasonableness is simply the diligence of the police in calling for and procuring the arrival of the canine at the scene. This use of a trained dog, as will be discussed, is an investigative practice that is looked upon with favor.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 Md. App. 211 - State v. Ofori · 190 Md. App. 497 - Jackson v. State

3. “In this case there was no disputing the olfactory expertise of the trained and certified cocaine-sniffing canine. When a qualified dog signals to its handler that narcotics are in a vehicle, moreover, that is ipso facto probable cause to justify a warrantless Carroll Doctrine search of the vehicle.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 Md. App. 211 - State v. Ofori · 190 Md. App. 497 - Jackson v. State