591 So. 2d 1058 - Cunningham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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. “is not sufficient merely to corroborate the identity, dress, description, location or even future activity of the suspect who is the subject of the anonymous information. In addition to independent evidence verifying that type of information, there must also be independent evidence of criminal activity on the part of the suspect. Otherwise, any totally innocent person could be the object of an anonymous tip furnishing verifiable information about name, description, whereabouts and future activity.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Goettl v. State · Lewis v. State

2. “[i]t is abundantly clear from an analysis of all the cases that even after an anonymous tip is sufficiently corroborated to warrant an investigative stop, a search or an arrest of a person so detained is not authorized absent the discovery of evidence sufficient to establish in the mind of the detaining officer probable cause to believe that the detainee is engaged in criminal activity or that there are outstanding warrants for the arrest of the detainee.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Goettl v. State · Swartz v. State

3. “There must be independent evidence of criminal activity apart from the otherwise verified anonymous tip to support a search of the described suspect.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Clark