Pennsylvania v. Bruder’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 16 district · 245 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 333 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2021 · most notably Stansbury v. California (1994), Thompson v. Keohane (1995)
12 federal appellate · 16 district · 245 state decisions — followed in 32 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Berkemer v. McCarty · California v. Beheler · Rhodes v. Stewart · Allen v. California
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 333 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Court concluded that the “non-coercive aspect of ordinary traffic stops prompts us to hold that persons tempo rarily detained pursuant to such stops are not ‘in custody’ for the purposes of Miranda.” The Court reasoned that although the stop was unquestionably a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, such traffic stops typically are brief, unlike a prolonged station house interrogation. Second, the Court emphasized that traffic stops commonly occur in the “public view,” in an atmosphere far “less ‘police dominated’ than that surrounding the kinds of interrogation at issue in Miranda itself.” The detained motorist’s “freedom of action [was not] curtailed to ‘a degree associated with formal arrest.’ ” Accordingly, he was not entitled to a recitation of his constitutional rights prior to arrest, and his roadside responses to questioning were admissible.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“delay formally arresting detained motorists, and . subject them to sustained and intimidating interrogation at the scene of their initial detention”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. People v. Taylor · State v. Donnell“`perform a simple balancing test at a location visible to passing motorists,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.