Snyder v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably 9 Va. App. 139 - Murphy v. Commonwealth (1989), Ackerman v. State (2002)
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 16 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 Terry v. Ohio · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · United States v. Mendenhall · United States v. Cortez · Delaware v. Prouse
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f police officers stationed at roadblocks were not permitted to stop such [evasive] drivers, the very drivers the police seek to deter could flagrantly avoid the roadblocks and the stops would lose their deterrent value. . . . The alternative is to tell police officers that[,] in spite of their experience, they may not infer from a driver's attempt to avoid a roadblock that the driver is very likely engaged in the commission of a crime. Such a rule would seem to tell police officers to "ignore reality."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“As a general rule automobile drivers are not shorn of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections when they leave their homes and enter their automobiles. Police Officers may only search an automobile or seize occupants upon obtaining a warrant or upon having probable cause to believe a crime has been committed or is being committed by occupants of the vehicle. An exception exists when the officer has a reasonable suspicion based upon specific and articulable facts, and rational inferences from those facts that the occupants are committing a crime or are about to commit a crime. In such a case the officer may briefly detain the occupants to conduct a limited “non-invasive” search such as a “pat down” for. weapons, a license and registration check, or field sobriety tests.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“turn away from the sobriety checkpoint, coupled with the deputy sheriff's experience in similar instances, the time of day, and the nature of the roadway onto which the appellant turned, constitute[d] specific, reasonable, and articulable facts which allowed the police officer to draw an inference sufficient to form a reasonable suspicion that the driver might have been engaging in criminal activity”
2 later decisions 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.