State v. Harlan’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. “The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 8, of the North Dakota Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable governmental searches and seizures. State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶ 22 , 615 N.W.2d 515 . A law enforcement officer may conduct a frisk or a pat-down search of a person only when the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). A pat-down search is justified only for the protection of the police officer or others nearby. Id. at 29 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 . There is no requirement that the officer know with certainty that the individual is armed, but a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances must be warranted in the belief that his or her safety or that of others is endangered. Id. at 27 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 . The scope of a constitutionally valid pat-down search is limited to the patting of a suspect’s outer clothing for such concealed objects that might be used as weapons. Id. at 30 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 . A pocket search is justified when the patting “reveals the presence of an object of a size and density that reasonably suggests the object might be a weapon.” State v. Heitzmann, 2001 ND 136, ¶ 13 , 632 N.W.2d 1 (citing State v. Zearley, 468 N.W.2d 391, 392 (N.D.1991)). Thus, the police officer must have an articulable and reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. Id. (citing State v. Zearley, 444 N.W.”

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