State v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

167 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 167 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he prolonged retention of a person's personal effects such as identification”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Andrade-Reyes · State v. Harder

2. ““The United States Supreme Court has developed a ‘totality of the circumstances’ test to determine if there is a seizure, or instead a consensual encounter. See State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763, 775 , 166 P.3d 1015 (2007). ‘[U]nder the test, law enforcement interaction with a person is consensual, not a seizure if, under the totality of the circumstances, the law enforcement officer’s conduct conveys to a reasonable person that he or she was free to refuse the requests or otherwise end the encounter.’ 284 Kan. at 775 . Stated another way, ‘ “[s]o long as a reasonable person would feel free to ‘disregard the police and go about his business,’ [citation omitted], the encounter is consensual and no reasonable suspicion is required.” ’ State v. Reason, 263 Kan. 405, 410 , 951 P.2d 538 (1997) (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 , 111 S. Ct. 2382 , 115 L. Ed. 2d 389 [1991]). Consequently, in Reason we held that only if ‘ “ ‘the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a “seizure” has occurred.’ ” ’ 263 Kan. at 410-11 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Reiss · State v. Thomas

3. ““ “When the actions of die police do not show an unambiguous intent to restrain or when an individual’s submission to a show of governmental authority takes the form of passive acquiescence, there needs to be some test for telling when a seizure occurs in response to authority, and when it does not. The test was devised by Justice Stewart in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 , 100 S. Ct. 1870 , 64 L. Ed. 2d 497 (1980), who wrote that a seizure occurs if “in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave,” [446 U.S.] at 554, 100 S. Ct. 1870 , 64 L. Ed. 2d 497 (principal opinion). Later on, the Court adopted Justice Stewart’s touchstone, [citations omitted], but added that when a person “has no desire to leave” for reasons unrelated to the police presence, the “coercive effect of the encounter” can be measured better by asking whether ‘a reasonable person would feel free to decline tire officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.” ’ [Citations omitted.]” Thompson, 284 Kan. at 790 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Pollman