187 So. 3d 24 - State v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Here, [the officer] testified that he handcuffed Mr. Lewis only after he repeatedly tried to put his hand into his coin pocket, despite the detective’s orders not to do so, and after the detective noticed a piece of sandwich bag sticking out of the top of that pocket. Given these circumstances, [the officer] was justified in handcuffing Mr. Lewis at that point. In addition, as in Thompson, [the offi cer’s] advising Mr. Lewis of his Miranda rights and that he was under investigation for a possible drug violation did not elevate the stop to an arrest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 209 So. 3d 150 - State v. Flournoy

2. “We' do not find that the nature of the investigatory stop was turned into an arrest when [the officer] read the detained men their constitutional rights. [The officer] testified the standard operating procedure was to Mirandize all persons detained or arrested. We find this procedure comports with La. Const, art. 1, § 13. In addition, we cannot fault the officer for providing Thompson with greater protection than he might otherwise have had in an investigatory stop.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 209 So. 3d 150 - State v. Flournoy

3. “[A] reviewing court must look at the totality of the circumstances to determine if an officer has reasonable suspicion to stop a suspect.”

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