Baldwin v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

81 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[N]ot all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves “seizures” of persons. Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may [the reviewing court] conclude that a “seizure” has occurred. As long as [a] person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person’s liberty or privacy as would under the Constitution require some particularized and objective justification.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 17 Va. App. 694 - Brown v. Commonwealth · McGee v. Commonwealth

2. “the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled. See Terry v. Ohio, [ 392 U.S. 1 ,] 19, n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878 [(1968)]; Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 207 , and n. 6, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 2254 , 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979); 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure 53-55 (1978). In the absence of some such evidence, otherwise inoffensive contact between a member of the public and the police cannot, as a matter of law, amount to a seizure of that person.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 28 Va. App. 80 - Reittinger v. Commonwealth · 37 Va. App. 262 - Sykes v. Commonwealth

3. ““[A] police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.” In order to justify such a seizure, “the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Perry