State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 49 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' of criminal activity. [Citation omitted.]”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hai That Ton · State v. Hanke

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). ‘[UJnder 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 . ‘We begin our analysis by acknowledging that a seizure does not occur simply because a police officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions: ‘[L]aw enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, [or] by putting que”

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

3. ““ ‘ “ ‘[T]his court reviews the factual underpinnings of a district court’s decision for substantial competent evidence and the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts de novo. The ultimate determination of the suppression of evidence is a legal question requiring independent appellate review. [Citation omitted.] The State bears the burden to demonstrate that a challenged search or seizure was lawful. [Citation omitted.]’ ” ’ ” State v. Thomas, 291 Kan. 676, 682 , 246 P.3d 678 (2011) (quoting State v. McGinnis, 290 Kan. 547, 551 , 233 P.3d 246 [2010]).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Walker