State v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “is not reasonable unless the officer is `able to point to particular facts from which he reasonably inferred that the individual was armed and dangerous'.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lee · 520 So. 2d 1206 - State v. Griffin

2. “[T]he circumstances under which a police officer may stop a person for questioning are both constitutionally and statutorily constrained. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 215.1 is a distillation of the constitutional jurisprudence which holds that: The right to make an investigatory stop and question the particular individual detained must be based upon reasonable cause to believe that he has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal conduct. State v. Chopin, 372 So.2d 1222, 1224 (La.1979). Reasonable cause amounts to something less than probable cause and must be determined under the facts of each case by whether the officer had sufficient knowledge of facts and circumstances to justify an infringement on the individual's right to be free from governmental interference. State v. Chopin, supra . Absent reasonable cause bestowing the right to make an investigatory stop, "property abandoned or otherwise disposed of as a result thereof cannot be legally seized" by police. State v. Chopin, supra . (emphasis in Chopin is added here, not reproduced from Lee . )”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 526 So. 2d 1346 - State v. Cuevas

3. “"After a careful review of the record in its entirety and bearing in mind our statutory and jurisprudential guidelines, it appears that reasonable cause to stop probably did not exist at the time of the deputies' grand swoop. Neither an identified caller nor any police corroboration exists to buttress the scant facts anonymously supplied. Casually allowing police officials to stop and search someone on the basis of any telephone call wherein the caller makes an accusation (anonymously) and supplies a few innocent details is dangerous to individual liberty, inviting of manipulation of police power by anonymous callers, and wholly open to abuse by the police themselves."”

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