Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 176 CALAPP3D 402 - People v. Bailey

People v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
7
states following
December 2022
most recently cited

45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably State v. Morris (2003), State v. Garcia-Cantu (2008)

45 state decisions

16019851990200020102020decided

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 Florida v. Royer · United States v. Mendenhall · 29 Cal. 3d 591 - People v. Leyba · 7 Cal. 3d 186 - People v. Superior Court · 66 Cal. 2d 260 - Parrish v. Civil Service Commission

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

  1. “A reasonable person to whom the red light from a vehicle is directed would be expected to recognize the signal to stop or otherwise be available to the officer. Any reasonable person in a similar situation would expect that if he drove off, the officer would respond by following with red light on and siren sounding in order to accomplish control of the individual * * *. The circumstances thus show an exercise of official authority such that [the defendant], under the standard of a reasonable person, would have believed he was not free to leave. He was seized, under the detention category of contact, without the necessary basis therefor, and his consent was therefore involuntary.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The United States Supreme Court has identified three categories of police contact with persons. The first is referred to as a `consensual encounter' in which there is no restraint on the person's liberty. There need be no objective justification for such an encounter. The second type, called `detention,' involves a seizure of the individual for a limited duration and for limited purposes. A constitutionally acceptable detention can occur `if there is an articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime.' The third type involves seizures in the nature of an arrest, which may occur only if the police have probable cause to arrest the person for a crime. [Citations.]”
    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.