State v. Sheehy’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
March 2017
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Florida v. Royer · Ornelas v. United States · Florida v. Bostick
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our cases make it clear that a seizure does not occur simply because a police officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions. So long as a reasonable person would feel free “to disregard the police and go about his business, the encounter is consensual and no reasonable suspicion is required.” The encounter will not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny unless it loses its consensual nature. The Court made precisely this point in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19, n. 16 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968): “Obviously, not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves ‘seizures’ of persons. Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a ‘seizure’ has occurred.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Iversen“Our review of a motion to suppress based on an alleged violation of a constitutionally protected right is a question of law examined de novo. See State v. Hirning, 1999 SD 53, ¶9 , 592 N.W.2d 600, 603 ; Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (standard of review for questions under the Fourth Amendment); United States v. Khan, 993 F.2d 1368, 1375 (9thCir.1993). We review findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. See State v. Almond, 511 N.W.2d 572, 573-74 (S.D.1994). Once the facts have been determined, however, the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo. Spenner v. City of Sioux Falls, 1998 SD 56, ¶ 13 , 580 N.W.2d 606, 610 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Iversen
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.