McGee v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
August 1997
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Florida v. Royer · Ornelas v. United States · United States v. Mendenhall · 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The uncontroverted evidence in this case establishes that the initial encounter between the defendant and the police was consensual and that the officers did not seize him for Fourth Amendment purposes. The officers approached the defendant in a public place and initiated a conversation in the course of investigating the anonymous report of drug dealing. The police officers had a duty to investigate the complaint of criminal activity, and it was reasonable for them to question the defendant, who was the only male at the reported location. Although the three officers who confronted the defendant were in uniform, they made no show of force. They did not “run up to” the defendant and did not draw their weapons. According to [the lead officer], the officers were standing in front of the defendant but did not block him from leaving in any direction. [The officer] testified that he spoke to the defendant in the same tone of voice he was using while testifying and that none of the officers touched the defendant before he consented to the pat down search. [The officer] approached the defendant, explained that the police had received a report of someone selling drugs on that street comer, and said that the defendant matched the description. [The officer], however, did not accuse the defendant of selling drugs. Rather, [the officer] simply told the defendant the reasons for approaching and asking him questions. Under these circumstances, we hold that no Fourth Amendment seizure occurre”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.