State v. Sousa’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘First, whether there is a “sufficient quantity of information” such as the vehicle’s make, model, license plate number, location and bearing, and “similar innocent details” so that the officer may be certain that the vehicle stopped is the one the tipster identified. [Citation.] Second, the time interval between the police receiving the tip and the police locating the suspect vehicle. [Citation.] Third, whether the tip is based upon contemporaneous eyewitness observations. [Citations.] Fourth, whether the tip is sufficiently detailed to permit the reasonable inference that the tipster has actually witnessed an ongoing motor vehicle offense.’ ” Shafer, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 1050 , 868 N.E.2d at 363 , quoting Sousa, 151 N.H. at 303-04 , 855 A.2d at 1290 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 372 Ill. App. 3d 1044 - People v. Shafer · 377 Ill. App. 3d 585 - People v. Ewing

2. “"Since J.L. , a few intermediate state appellate courts have concluded that anonymous tips of drunk or erratic driving are unreliable, requiring police corroboration of the tip's incriminating details. See Washington v. State , 740 N.E.2d 1241 , 1246 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000), cert denied , 753 N.E.2d 7 (Ind. 2001); *Page 745 State v. Boyle , 793 So.2d 1281 , 1283-85 (La.Ct.App. 2001); Com. v. Lubiejewski , 49 Mass.App.Ct. 212 , 729 N.E.2d 288 , 291 (2000); Hall v. State , 74 S.W.3d 521 , 525-27 (Tex.App. 2002). "By contrast, every state court of last resort that has directly addressed the issue has concluded that, in a drunk or erratic driving case, certain tips are sufficiently reliable and detailed, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances, to establish reasonable suspicion. See Bloomingdale v. State , 842 A.2d 1212 , 1217-22 (Del. 2004); State v. Prendergast , 103 Hawai'i 451 , 83 P.3d 714 , 723-24 (2004); State v. Walshire , 634 N.W.2d 625 , 630 (Iowa 2001); State v. Crawford , 275 Kan. 492 , 67 P.3d 115 , 119-20 (2003); State v. Lafond , 802 A.2d 425 , 429-30 (Me. 2002); State v. Golotta , 178 N.J. 205 , 837 A.2d 359 , 366-69 (2003); State v. Scholl , 684 N.W.2d 83 , 85-86 (S.D. 2004); [State v.] Boyea , [ 171 Vt. 401 ,] 765 A.2d [862 ] at 868 [(2000)]. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the only federal appellate court to address the issue, concurs. United States v. Wheat , 278 F.3d 722 , 731-34 (8th Cir. 2001), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 850 , 123 S.Ct. 194 , 154 L.Ed”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 971 So. 2d 735 - Cottrell v. State

3. “less demanding standard than probable cause”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Meghan Sage