Darden v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`If the function of arrest were merely to produce persons in court for purposes of their prosecution, then a more-probable-than-not-test would have considerable appeal. But there is also an investigative function which is served by the making of arrests.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 968 So. 2d 543 - State v. Montgomery · 775 So. 2d 857 - Melson v. State

2. “"Although the fact that defendant was handcuffed is a weighty factor in the analysis of whether he was seized or voluntarily chose to undergo police custody, it diminishes in importance when viewed in light of later circumstances. "Those later circumstances include the following facts: the handcuffs were removed upon his arrival at the precinct; he was left unattended and unrestrained *Page 896 on four occasions, two of which presented good opportunities to leave or escape; Sgt. Quinn preceded every investigative action he took [obtaining fingerprints and a photograph] with a request or an inquiry whether the defendant 'minded' submitting to the procedure; and Sgt. Quinn complied with the defendant's wishes regarding being taken home, to work, or to see his mother. Particularly significant in this regard are the visit to the bank [where the defendant's mother was employed], during which Quinn told the defendant it 'wasn't necessary' for Quinn to accompany the defendant inside, and the stop at the fingerprint identification section, during which Quinn left the defendant totally unattended and unrestrained [in the car] while he, Quinn, delivered the print cards to [the fingerprint expert]. Had the defendant felt restrained on either occasion, he could have gone into the bank alone or left the car. In either instance, he might have eluded Quinn altogether. While events at the precinct, the bank, and the unattended car cannot relate back to 'cure' an earlier involuntary detention”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 588 So. 2d 891 - Dixon v. State

3. “While some courts have held that flight at the approach of plainclothes officers in an unmarked car is at most ambiguous, see United States v. Ortega-Serrano, 788 F.2d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1986); United States v. Jones, 619 F.2d 494, 498 (5th Cir.1980), others have concluded that the conduct is not, as a matter of law, suspicious, see People v. Huntsman, 152 Cal.App.3d 1073, 1091 , 200 Cal.Rptr. 89, 100-01 (1984).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 661 So. 2d 774 - Hopkins v. State