530 So. 2d 97 - State v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 2012
14 state decisions
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 Michigan v. Chesternut · 441 So. 2d 1195 - State v. Belton · State v. Chopin · 434 So. 2d 389 - State v. Andrishok · 358 So. 2d 1274 - State v. Ryan
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although a defendant's furtiveness may be highly suspicious and is a factor to be considered in this determination (sic), his flight, nervousness, or startled look at the sight of a police officer, without any relationship to a violation of criminal law, is insufficient to justify an investigatory stop. [citations omitted] Applying these principles to the admittedly close facts in the instant case, we conclude that the police officers did not have reasonable cause to make an investigatory stop of the defendant based on a suspicion that he had engaged in a narcotics transaction. Although the defendant's running from the scene upon seeing the officers is a factor to be considered, this flight was is (sic) still insufficient to justify an investigatory stop where the officers did not know what was in defendant's hand, saw no exchange of money, and had not recognized either the defendant or his companion as a known drug dealer.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““... must be based upon reasonable cause to believe that he has been, is, or is about to engage in criminal conduct, (citations omitted) Under the totality of circumstances in the case it must be determined whether the police officer had sufficient knowledge of the facts and circumstances to justify infringing on the individual’s right to be free, (citations omitted) Although a defendant’s furtiveness may be highly suspicious and is a factor to be considered in this determination, his flight, nervousness, or startled look at the sight of a police officer, without any relationship to a violation of criminal law, is insufficient to justify an investigatory stop.” (citations omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Catchings
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.