State v. Francis’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. “An individual’s presence, in an area of expected crime, standing alone, is of course insufficient to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 , 120 S.Ct. 673 , 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 , 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979). But we have recognized that the reputation of an area is an articulable fact upon which an officer may rely in determining reasonable suspicion. See State v. Ratliff, 98-0094, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/19/99), 737 So.2d 252, 254 . Inquiry into the criminal character of an area is a legally relevant contextual consideration when analyzing a Terry stop. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 144, 147-48 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 , 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972). [footnote omitted][emphasis added]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 134 So. 3d 671 - State v. Hall

2. “Reasonableness is always the touchstone in striking the balance between legitimate law enforcement concerns, such as officer safety, and protected individual privacy interests.”

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

3. “high crime area,” but little has been done to define it. High crime areas have been described as”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 98 So. 3d 903 - State v. Harris