Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 146 N.M. 32 - State v. Ochoa

State v. Ochoa’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
3
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

61 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably State v. Leyva (2011), State v. Gonzales (2011)

61 state decisions

530200820102020decided

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 Whren v. United States · Illinois v. Krull · State v. Gomez · United States v. Guzman · United States v. Botero-Ospina

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

  1. “First, the trial court must determine whether there was reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the stop. As usual, the [s]tate has the burden of proof to justify the stop under an exception to the warrant requirement. If the stop can be justified objectively on its face and the defendant argues that the seizure was nevertheless unreasonable because it was pretextual under the New Mexico Constitution, then the district court must decide whether the officer’s motive for [the stop] was unrelated to the objective existence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The defendant has the burden of proof to show pretext based on the totality of the circumstances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In performing a pretextual traffic stop, a police officer is stopping the driver, “not to enforce the traffic code, but to conduct a criminal investigation unrelated to the driving. Therefore the reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic infraction has occurred which justifies an exception to the warrant requirement for an ordinary traffic stop does not justify a stop for criminal investigation.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a detention supportable by reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a traffic offense has occurred, but is executed as a pretense to pursue a `hunch,' a different more serious investigative agenda for which there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.