State v. Hunt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

82 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is undisputed tha[t] an individual’s constitutional protections from unreasonable search and seizures are triggered during an investigative traffic stop. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682 , 105 S.Ct. 1568, 1573 , 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985). The law provides the stopping of a vehicle and its occupants constitute a seizure under the law. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 , 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1396 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). In determining the legality of a traffic stop, a reviewing court must decide “whether the officer’s actions were justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). For a traffic stop to be justified at its inception, an officer must have an objectively reasonable suspicion that some sort of illegal activity occurred or is about to occur, before stopping the vehicle. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 , 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989); State v. Kalie, 96-2650, p. 3 (La.9/19/97), 699 So.2d 879, 881 . When an officer observes what he objectively believes is a traffic offense, the decision to stop the vehicle is reasonable, regardless of the officer’s subjective motivation. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 813 , 116 S.Ct. 1769, 1772, 1774 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); State v. Waters, 00-0356, p. 4 (La.3/12/01), 780 So.2d 1053, 1056 ; State v. Landry, 98-0188, p. ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Overstreet · 145 So. 3d 288 - State v. Gates

2. “This court has recently restated the general rule that appellate courts review trial court rulings under a deferential standard with regard to factual and other trial determinations, while legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review. State v. Hunt , 09-1589, p. 6 (La. 12/1/09), 25 So.3d 746 , 751, citing State v. Hampton , 98-0331, p. 18 (La. 4/23/99), 750 So.2d 867 , 884. When a trial court makes findings of fact based on the weight of the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses, a reviewing court owes those findings great deference, and may not overturn those findings unless there is no evidence to support those findings. Id. A "trial judge's ruling [on a fact question], based on conclusions of credibility and weight of the testimony, is entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is no evidence to support the ruling." State v. Bourque , 622 So.2d 198 , 222 (La. 1993).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Foshee v. Georgia Gulf Chemicals & Vinyls, L.L.C. · State v. Guidry

3. “It is well-settled the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, [ 384 U.S. 486 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ] “protects an individual’s Fifth Amendment privilege during incommunicado interrogation in a police-controlled atmosphere.” State v. Leger, 05-0011, p. 13 (La.7/10/06), 936 So.2d 108, 124 , citing State v. Taylor, 01-1638, p. 6 (La.1/14/03), 838 So.2d 729, 739 . In Miranda, the Supreme Court defined “custodial interrogation” as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Id., 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S.Ct. at 1602 . Thus, before a confession or inculpatory statement made during a custodial interrogation may be introduced into evidence, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was first advised of his Miranda rights, that he voluntarily and intelligently waived those rights, and that the statement was made freely and voluntarily and not under the influence of fear, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducement, or promises. La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 703(D); La. R.S. 15:451; [State u] Lee, 05-2098 [p. 15 (La.1/16/08), 976 So.2d 109 ,] 122. The admissibility of a confession is a question for the trial court. Id. As with the testimony relative to the physical evidence, the trial court’s conclusions on the credibility and weight of the testimony relating to the voluntary nature of the defendant’s confession are accorded great weight and ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 99 So. 3d 1108 - State v. Craft