State v. Lussier’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Martin v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2008), Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department (2002)
80 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 United States v. Leon · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza · One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania · Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. M Scott · 6 Cal. 4th 841 - Gikas v. Zolin
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining the legality of a stop, courts do not attempt to divine the arresting officer's actual subjective motivation for making the stop; rather, they consider from an objective standpoint whether, given all of the circumstances, the officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion of wrongdoing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`If the exclusionary rule were not applied in civil suspension proceedings, law enforcement officers could make investigatory stops based on hunches or stereotyped beliefs, or for any or no reason whatsoever, knowing that even if any evidence obtained from the stop were to be suppressed in criminal proceedings, license suspensions could still follow. Given the significance of obtaining license suspensions, allowing unlawfully obtained evidence to be admitted in civil suspension proceedings could encourage disregard for the constitutional limits of a legal stop.' See LaFave, supra, at 202-03 (highly relevant factors in determining whether to apply exclusionary rule in quasi-criminal proceedings are magnitude of consequences for individual involved and extent to which nonexclusion would encourage unlawful searches and seizures)." State v. Lussier, 171 Vt. 19 , 757 A.2d 1017 (2000).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to believe motorist was driving while intoxicated, legislature assumed that constitutional stop would be necessary predicate to finding reasonable grounds for suspicion of DUI). ¶ 65 The Department cites language in part of the current misdemeanor DUI statute addressing preliminary screening tests which requires officers to have made”
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.