17 Ariz. App. 441 - State v. Baltier’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There must be a rational suspicion by the police officer that some activity out of the ordinary is or has taken place, some indication to connect the person under suspicion with the unusual activity, and some suggestion that the activity is related to crime.” 17 Ariz.App. at 448 , 498 P.2d at 522 .”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 21 Ariz. App. 87 - State v. Mayes · 19 Ariz. App. 7 - State v. Taras

2. ““The California Supreme Court, since Terry [Terry v. State of Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 ], has adopted the following test to determine whether a forced stop for interrogation or investigative purposes is justified: There must be a rational suspicion by the police officer that some activity out of the ordinary is or has taken place, some indication to connect the person under suspicion with the unusual activity, and some suggestion that the activity is related to crime, (citation omitted) We believe that the above is a well founded test in that it allows valid field investigation by the police while at the same time protects the individual citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights. “In light of the above we believe that Officers Bright and Crum were justified in stopping defendant for the purpose of conducting a limited field interrogation. His action in going to abnormal extremes to avoid uniformed police officers was not only suspicious conduct but also more consistent with criminal than innocent behavior.” State v. Baltier, 17 Ariz.App. 441, 448 , 498 P.2d 515, 522 (1972). See also Terry v. State of Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ; State v. Taras, 19 Ariz.App. 7 , 504 P.2d 548 (1973); State v. Ream, 19 Ariz.App. 131 , 505 P.2d 569 (1973).”

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

3. ““ . . . [Wjhere a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety. . . .”88 S.Ct. at 1884.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 22 Ariz. App. 118 - Reed v. Roylston