Bostick v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 46 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`[T]he evidence in this cause has evoked images of other days, under other flags, when no man traveled his nation's roads or railways without fear of unwarranted interruption, by individuals who held temporary power in the government. The spectre of American citizens being asked, by badge-wielding police for identification, travel papers — in short a raison d'etre — is foreign to any fair reading of the Constitution, and its guarantee of human liberties. This is not Hitler's Berlin, nor Stalin's Moscow, nor is it white supremacist South Africa. Yet in Broward County, Florida, these police officers approach every person on board buses and trains ("that time permits") and check identification [and] tickets, [and] asked to search luggage — all in the name of "voluntary cooperation" with law enforcement....'" 554 So.2d at 1158, quoting State v. Kerwick supra, at 348-349 (quoting trial court order).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. United States v. Harvey · Hosey v. State

2. ““Without doubt the inherently transient nature of drug courier activity presents difficult law enforcement problems. Roving patrols, random sweeps and arbitrary searches or seizures would go far to eliminate such crime in this state [and nation]. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist Cuba have demonstrated all too tellingly the effectiveness of such methods. Yet we are not a state that subscribes to the notion that ends justify means. History demonstrates that the adoption of repressive measures, even to eliminate a clear evil, usually results only in repression more mindless and terrifying than the evil that prompted them. Means have a disturbing tendency to become the end result. And as Judge Glickstein noted in his dissent in Snider v. State, 501 So.2d 609, 610 (Fla.App.1986): ‘Occasionally the price we must pay to make innocent persons secure from unreasonable search and seizure of their persons or property is to let an offender go. Those who suffered harassment from King George Ill’s forces would say that is not a great price to pay. So would residents of the numerous totalitarian and authoritarian states of our day.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 408 Pa. Super. 399 - Commonwealth v. Valenzuela · 730 F. Supp. 332 - United States v. Laymon

3. “an impermissible seizure result[s] when police mount a drug search during scheduled stops and question boarded passengers without articulable reasons for doing so, thereby obtaining consent to search the passengers' luggage.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hosey v. State · Florida v. Bostick