State v. Torkelsen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) arrests, which must be supported by probable cause; (2) Terry stops, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), seizures which must be supported by a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity; and (3) community caretaking encounters, which do not constitute Fourth Amendment seizures.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sayler v. North Dakota Department of Transportation · State v. Olson

2. ““Under Terry , police may, in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, detain an individual for investigative purposes when there is no probable cause to make an arrest if a reasonable and articulable suspicion exists that criminal activity is afoot.” Torkelsen, 2006 ND 152, ¶ 11 , 718 N.W.2d 22 (citing Anderson v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2005 ND 97, ¶ 8 , 696 N.W.2d 918 ). In reviewing whether an investigative stop is valid, we use an objective standard and look to the “totality of the circumstances.” [State v.] Parizek, 2004 ND 78, ¶9 , 678 N.W.2d 154 . “The question is whether a reasonable person in the officer’s position would be justified by some objective manifestation to suspect the defendant was, or was about to be, engaged in unlawful activity.” Id.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sayler v. North Dakota Department of Transportation · State v. Olson

3. ““[This Court] will defer to. a trial court’s findings of fact in the disposition of a motion to suppress. Conflicts in testimony will be resolved in favor of affir-mance, as we recognize the trial court is in a superior position to assess credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence. Generally, a trial court’s decision to deny a motion to suppress will not be reversed if there is sufficient competent evidence capable of supporting the trial court’s findings, and if its decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Olson · City of Mandan v. Gerhardt