541 So. 2d 583 - Pittman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'more analogous' to the brief investigative detention authorized in Terry [v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 [ 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 ] (1968) ]”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Williams · 28 So. 3d 29 - Bah v. State

2. “". . . Section 32-1-4 does not prohibit the arrest of the traffic offender. It merely provides that, with certain exceptions, that offender shall be subjected only to limited detention or custody.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 574 So. 2d 856 - Sides v. State · State v. Washington

3. ““Once the trooper smelled the odor of marijuana on Robinette’s person, he was justified in asking him if he had been smoking marijuana without having advised Robinette of his Miranda rights. “ ‘Under the Fourth Amendment, we have held, a policeman who lacks probable cause but whose “observations lead him reasonably to suspect” that a particular person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, may detain that person briefly in order to “investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881 , 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2580 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). “[T]he stop and inquiry must be ‘reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation.’ ” Ibid, (quoting Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. [1], at 29, 88 S.Ct. [1868], at 1884 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)]). Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond. And, unless the detainee’s answers provide the officer with probable cause to arrest him, he must then be released. [Berkemer v.J McCarty, 468 U.S. [420] at 439-440, 104 S.Ct. [3138] [at] 3150 [ 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)]. (Footnotes omitted.)’ “See also State v. Wilson, 529 So.2d 1061, 1063 (Ala.Cr.App.1988); McBride v. State, 355 So.2d 750, 752 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978).” Pittman, 541 So.2d at 586 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 549 So. 2d 623 - McCall v. State