Mora v. People’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Nor was anything done after the officers arrived on the scene to justify Mora’s arrest. The record is devoid of evidence to show that the officers observed any criminal activity on the part of Mora or that Mora was connected in any way with disposition of the allegedly stolen merchandise. Moreover, the record fails to reveal that Mora was even aware of the presence of the clothing which was found in the trunk of Vigil’s car. See People v. Nelson, 172 Colo. 456 , 474 P.2d 158 (1970). The only fact linking Mora to either of the crimes for which he was arrested was his physical presence in Vigil’s car. Mora’s physical presence in the automobile, in and of itself, did not provide probable cause to arrest. United States v. DiRe, 332 U.S. 581 , 68 S.Ct. 222 , 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948). As we stated in People v. Feltch, [ 174 Colo. 383 , 483 P.2d 1335 (1971) ]: “Guilt by association has never been an acceptable rationale and it does not constitute probable cause to arrest.” See generally, Gallegos v. People, 157 Colo. 173 , 401 P.2d 613 (1965); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 , 88 S.Ct. 1889 , 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 , 80 S.Ct. 168 , 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959). [[Image here]] Having arrested Mora illegally, the prosecution cannot now claim that the evidence obtained as a result of the arrest need not be suppressed because it was abandoned. Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 , 80 S.Ct. 1431 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 (1960).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Foster