State v. Noteboom’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Illinois v. Wardlow, the United States Supreme Court recognized that flight may be one of the factors leading law enforcement to suspect criminal activity is afoot. 528 U.S. 119, 124 , 120 S.Ct. 673, 676 , 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000). In Wardlow , the defendant fled when he saw “police officers patrolling an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking.” Id. at 121 , 120 S.Ct. at 674 . The officers ran after him, stopped him, and did a protective pat down search. The Court determined that, in addition to the defendant’s presence in the high-crime area, his “unprovoked flight upon noticing the police” raised the officers’ suspicions. Id. at 124 , 120 S.Ct. at 676 . The Court analyzed it as follows: Headlong flight — wherever it occurs— is the consummate act of evasion: It is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing but it is certainly suggestive of such. In reviewing the propriety of an officer’s conduct, courts do not have available empirical studies dealing with inferences drawn from suspicious behaviors, and we cannot reasonably demand scientific certainty from judges or law enforcement officers where none exists. Thus, the determination of reasonable suspicion must be based on commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior. Id. at 124-25 , 120 S.Ct. at 676 . Even though an individual has “a right to ignore the police and go about his business,” the Court determined that “unprovoked flight” was not “going about one’s business.” The Court explained that officers can d”

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

2. “officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that `might well elude an untrained person.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re HLS

3. “`particularized and objective basis' for suspecting legal wrongdoing”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re HLS