State v. Boyd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Deputy Schuh “pulled in behind” Boyd and her companions, blocking their vehicle’s rear exit. Deputy Schuh did not converse with them in a casual manner; she ordered them to go to the front of their vehicle and put their hands on the hood. By issuing orders and demanding compliance, Deputy Schuh removed herself from the scope of acceptable actions for officers acting as community caretakers.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Rist v. North Dakota Department of Transportation · 362 N.J. Super. 600 - State v. Diloreto

2. “"Law enforcement officers often serve as community caretakers. Lapp v. N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 2001 ND 140 , ¶ 14, 632 N.W.2d 419 (citing State v. DeCoteau , 1999 ND 77 , ¶ 19, 592 N.W.2d 579 ). The United States Supreme Court described community caretaking functions as those 'totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.' Cady v. Dombrowski , 413 U.S. 433 , 441, 93 S.Ct. 2523 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973). Community caretaking allows law enforcement-citizen contact, including stops, without an officer's reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. State v. Glaesman , 545 N.W.2d 178 , 181 (N.D. 1996). For Fourth Amendment purposes, a seizure does not occur when an officer approaches a parked vehicle if the officer questions the occupant in a conversational manner and does not issue orders to the person or demand a response. State v. Langseth , 492 N.W.2d 298 , 300 (N.D. 1992) (citing Wibben v. N.D. State Highway Comm'r , 413 N.W.2d 329 , 334-35 (N.D. 1987) (VandeWalle, J., concurring)). However, even a casual encounter can become a seizure if a reasonable person would view the officer's actions-if done by another private citizen-as threatening or offensive. Id. (citing Wibben , at 335 ). This may occur through an order, a threat, or a weapon display. Id. An officer's initial community caretaking encounter also may cause the officer to develop a reasonable and articulable suspicion of unlawful conduct. La”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bridgeford v. Sorel

3. “To determine whether an officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion, we examine the information known to the officer at the time of the stop. State v. Robertsdahl, 512 N.W.2d 427, 428 (N.D.1994) (citing State v. Miller, 510 N.W.2d 638 (N.D.1994)). The reasonable-and-articulable-suspicion standard requires that the officer justify the stop “with more than just a vague ‘hunch’ or other non-objective facts; and ... the articu-lable facts must produce, by reasonable inference, a reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct.” Bryl v. Backes, 477 N.W.2d 809, 811 n. 2 (N.D.1991) (quoting State v. VandeHoven, 388 N.W.2d 857 , 858 n. 1 (N.D.1986)). An officer can use information received from other persons along with his or her personal observations to form the factual basis needed for a legal investigatory stop. City of Minot v. Nelson, 462 N.W.2d 460 (N.D.1990). We consider the collective information of law enforcement personnel, known- by or transmitted to the stopping officer, to determine whether a stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. State v. Nelson, 488 N.W.2d 600, 602 (N.D.1992). We have upheld investigatory stops when the stopping officer received a tip from other officers or informants and the officer corroborated the tip with personal observations. State v. Kenner, 1997 ND 1, ¶ 12 , 559 N.W.2d 538 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Garcia v. Levi