State v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"This Court has recognized that a traffic stop is `"`more analogous' to the brief investigative detention authorized by Terry "' than custody traditionally associated with a felony arrest. Sides v. State, 574 So.2d 856, 858 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990), quoting Pittman v. State, 541 So.2d 583, 585 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), quoting in turn Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984). In stopping a vehicle for a traffic violation, a police officer has, in Fourth Amendment terms, seized the driver, Cains v. State, 555 So.2d 290, 292 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), quoting Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979). So long as the police officer has properly seized the occupants of the car, the officer may order the driver, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 (1977), or a passenger, State v. Hails, 814 So.2d 980 (Ala.Crim.App.2000)(recognizing Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 415 (1997)), cert. denied, 814 So.2d 988 (Ala. 2001), out of the car without violating the Fourth Amendment. See, State v. Abner, 889 So.2d 52, 53-54 (Ala.Crim. App.2004) (recognizing the applicability of Mimms and Wilson in Alabama). "When a police officer properly stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the police officer may not only order the driver out of the vehicle, but may also pat down the driver for weapons if the officer reasonably believes that the driver is armed and dangerous. Mimms, 434 U.S. at 112 . In Arizona v. Johnson, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 781 (2009), the United States Supreme Court explained: "`[I]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bailey

2. “[s]o long as the police officer has properly seized the occupants of the car, the officer may order the driver, Pennsylvania v. Mimms , 434 U.S. 106 , 111, 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), or a passenger, State v. Hails , 814 So.2d 980 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) (recognizing Maryland v. Wilson , 519 U.S. 408 , 415, 117 S.Ct. 882 , 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997) ), cert. denied, 814 So.2d 988 (Ala. 2001), out of the car without violating the Fourth Amendment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Williams

3. “' "[p]olice may conduct a patdown search without a warrant if, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer has an articulable, reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity and that he is armed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Williams