State v. Cloukey’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably State v. Orr (2001), 202 N.J. Super. 28 - State v. Kirk (1985)
27 state decisions — followed in 15 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Delaware v. Prouse · Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco · See v. City of Seattle · United States v. Martinez-Fuerte · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The degree of discretion, if any, left to the officer in the field; (2) the location designated for the roadblock; (3) the time and duration of the roadblock; (4) standards set by superior officers; (5) advance notice to the public at large; (6) advance warning to the individual approaching motorist; (7) maintenance of safety conditions; (8) degree of fear or anxiety generated by the mode of operation; (9) average length of time each motorist is detained; (10) physical factors surrounding the location, type and method of operation; (11) the availability of less intrusive methods for combating the problem; (12) the degree of effectiveness of the procedure; and (13) any other relevant circumstances which might bear upon the test.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““[T]he permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In our view, the roadblock stop of the Ford Bronco does not run afoul of the rule of Prouse . While this may not have been a '100% roadblock' of the type referred to in Prouse , it is nonetheless a long way from the selective, single car stop denounced in Prouse . In the instant case, the New Mexico state police were attempting to stop all westbound traffic on an interstate highway, insofar as was humanly possible. The decision not to stop trucks was reasonable under the circumstances, because, presumably, they had all been stopped at a port of entry. The purpose of the roadblock, i.e., to check drivers' license and car registrations, was a legitimate one. If, in the process of so doing, the officers saw evidence of other crimes, they had the right to take reasonable investigative steps and were not required to close their eyes. See United States v. Merryman , 630 F.2d 780 , 782-85 (10th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, allowing all the stopped cars through when traffic became congested was also reasonable and, in our view, nonviolative of the rule of Prouse . In sum, the roadblock stop of the Ford Bronco was, under the described circumstances, constitutional." 645 F.2d at 856-57 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.