24 Cal. 3d 638 - People v. Bower’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 188 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 220 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably 29 Cal. 3d 591 - People v. Leyba (1981), 8 Cal. 4th 137 - People v. Turner (1994)
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 188 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · 21 Cal. 3d 888 - Fare v. Tony C. · 3 Cal. 3d 807 - People v. Superior Court · 59 Cal. 2d 65 - Tompkins v. Superior Court · 62 Cal. 2d 92 - People v. One 1960 Cadillac Coupe
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 220 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“officer's assertion that the location lay in a `high crime' area does not elevate ... facts into a reasonable suspicion of criminality. The `high crime area' factor is not an `activity' of an individual. Many citizens of this state are forced to live in areas that have `high crime' rates or they come to these areas to shop, work, play, transact business, or visit relatives or friends. The spectrum of legitimate human behavior occurs every day in so-called high crime areas. As a result, this court has appraised this factor with caution and has been reluctant to conclude that a location's crime rate transforms otherwise innocent-appearing circumstances into circumstances justifying the seizure of an individual. [Citations.]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“at a `very quick walk, almost a run' through a passageway to a nearby street”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“To legally detain an individual because of 'suspicious circumstances,' the prosecution must establish on the record that at the moment of the detention, there were specific and articulable facts, which reasonably caused officers to believe that (1) some activity out of the ordinary had taken place or was occurring or about to occur; (2) the activity was related to crime; and (3) the individual under suspicion was connected to the activity. [Citation.]”
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.