Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 189 Md. App. 653 - Stokeling v. State

189 Md. App. 653 - Stokeling v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
November 2019
most recently cited

30 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Carroll v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Chimel v. California · Ornelas v. United States

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

  1. “By the time a strip search would have been earned out, however, the officers had, probable cause to believe the appellant was in possession of drugs on his body based upon the total facts, including the presence of a bag of “something” in his crotch area.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'a large bag of something in [the occupant's] crotch area'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““The rule of probable cause is a non-technical conception of a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, requiring less evidence for such belief than would justify conviction but more evidence than that which would arouse a mere suspicion.” Doering v. State, 313 Md. 384, 403 ( 545 A.2d 1281 ] (1988). Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information would justify the belief of a reasonable person that a crime has been or is being committed. See Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 [ 85 S.Ct. 223 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 ] (1964); Collins [v. State, 322 Md. 675, 680, 589 A.2d 479 (1991) ]. We have recognized that in dealing with probable cause, we deal with probabilities. “These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.” Doering, 313 Md. at 403 [ 545 A.2d 1281 ] (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76 [ 69 S.Ct. 1302 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 ] (1949)).”
    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.