State v. Foreman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 46 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]t is obvious that a law-enforcement agency cannot make impaired driving checks of drivers of vehicles on highways unless such vehicles can be stopped. Certainly, the purpose of any checkpoint and [statutes governing the establishment, organization, and management of impaired driving checkpoints] would be defeated if drivers had the option to legally avoid, ignore or circumvent the checkpoint by either electing to drive through without stopping or by turning away upon entering the checkpoint's perimeters. Further, it is clear that the perimeters of the checkpoint or the area in which checks are conducted would include the area within which drivers may become aware of its presence by observation of any sign marking or giving notice of the checkpoint. Therefore, we hold that it is reasonable and permissible for an officer to monitor a checkpoint's entrance for vehicles whose drivers may be attempting to avoid the checkpoint, and it necessarily follows that an officer, in light of and pursuant to the totality of the circumstances or the checkpoint plan, may pursue and stop a vehicle which has turned away from a checkpoint within its perimeters for reasonable inquiry to determine why the vehicle turned away. Our state's interest in combating intoxicated drivers outweighs the minimal intrusion that an investigatory stop may impose upon a motorist under these circumstances.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Anaya · 186 N.C. App. 275 - State v. Haislip

2. “[Wjhen an officer observes conduct which leads him reasonably to believe that criminal conduct may be afoot, he may stop the suspicious person to make reasonable inquiries. [T]he police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts, which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant [the] intrusion.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mitchell · 186 N.C. App. 275 - State v. Haislip

3. “[a]lthough a legal turn, by itself, is not sufficient to establish a reasonable, articulable suspicion, a legal turn in conjunction with other circumstances, such as the time, place and manner in which it is made, may constitute a reasonable, articulable suspicion which could justify an investigatory stop.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 246 N.C. App. 671 - State v. Johnson · State v. Anaya