United States v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The officers observed Smith’s vehicle brake abruptly and turn suddenly into a private gravel driveway. Smith’s erratic driving and the nature of the road onto which he turned could have reasonably suggested to the officers that Smith was attempting to evade the roadblock rather than simply “going about [his] business,” Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125 [ 120 S.Ct. 673 ] (internal quotation marks omitted). See Steinbeck v. Commonwealth, 862 S.W.2d 912, 914 (Ky. Ct. App. 1993) (finding reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop when, at 3:15 a.m., defendant’s vehicle turned onto unpaved and uninhabited road before reaching roadblock). Upon further investigation, Officer McCoy observed Smith’s vehicle stopped in the middle of the driveway, more than 200 feet from the public road but still some distance from the residence. McCoy could have reasonably inferred from this observation that Smith was attempting to evade the police checkpoint by hiding in the driveway and was not simply turning into the driveway because he lived there or because he was turning around to avoid the checkpoint for innocent reasons, such as a belief that an accident was ahead. See Smith v. State, 515 So.2d 149, 150, 151 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987) (holding that investigatory stop of defendant’s vehicle was justified when officer observed vehicle come around a curve approximately 200 yards from roadblock, turn rapidly into a private driveway, and stop 50 feet from a residence with its lights off but engine running); Sta”

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

2. “[T]he principles of Wardlow apply to evasive conduct by drivers approaching a police roadblock. As with an individual who encounters police on foot, “[h]eadlong flight” or other “nervous, evasive behavior” in response to a roadblock may contribute to reasonable suspicion that the driver is engaged in criminal activity. Id. at 124 [ 120 S.Ct. 673 ]. Such evasive behavior is “not going about one’s business,” id. at 125 [ 120 S.Ct. 673 ] (internal quotation marks omitted), but instead suggests that the driver is avoiding the roadblock for other than innocent reasons, see id. at 124-25 [ 120 S.Ct. 673 ]. Indeed, we have repeatedly recognized that evasive reactions to the presence of police may be considered in deter mining whether reasonable suspicion exists for an investigatory stop. See United States v. Sims, 296 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that defendant’s evasive behavior — which reasonably suggested he was hiding from officers and not simply “going about his business” — supported finding of reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop (alteration & internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Brugal, 209 F.3d 353, 360-61 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (plurality opinion) (concluding that officers had reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle that immediately exited interstate after passing “decoy” signs indicating drug checkpoint was ahead, in part because area surrounding exit was deserted when vehicle exited at 3:30 a.m.); United States v. Sprinkle, 106 F.3d 613, 6”

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

3. “'[h]eadlong flight' or other 'nervous, evasive behavior' in response to a roadblock may contribute to reasonable suspicion that the driver is engaged in criminal activity.... Such evasive behavior is 'not going about one's business.'”

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