253 Ga. App. 775 - Edgell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An individual’s rights under the Fourth Amendment are not automatically waived, however, simply because he or she is asked to step out of a vehicle. The safety of officers is of extreme importance to this Court. Nonetheless, our constitution requires an officer to provide evidence to show that an act alleged to be performed for his safety was actually performed for that purpose in conformance with the requisite standards of Terry . Without appropriate evidence that the “officer . . . had a reasonable basis for concluding that (the suspect subject to the search) was armed or was otherwise a threat to his personal safety,” Newton, supra, the intrusive search of the type in this case is unconstitutional.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 256 Ga. App. 429 - Milby v. State · 276 Ga. App. 110 - Debord v. State

2. “[e]ven a particularized and objective basis for [making the stop does not] authorize a pat-down of the suspect for weapons. An officer who has lawfully detained a citizen is authorized to conduct a Terry pat-down for weapons only if the officer has a reasonable belief preparatory to an intended pat-down that the suspect is armed and presents a danger to the officer or others.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 284 Ga. App. 212 - Perez v. State · 348 Ga. App. 579 - The State v. Robusto.

3. “Implicit in this rule of law ... is the prerequisite determination that the officer actually concluded that the suspect was armed or a threat to personal safety and the officer can articulate a basis for his conclusion so that a Terry protective pat-down would not be unreasonable in the given set of circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 304 Ga. App. 93 - Molina v. State