United States v. Everett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Because the reasonable diligence standard does not “require [an officer] to move at top speed,” here, too, some amount of questioning is permissible— so long as the officer’s overall course of action during a traffic stop, viewed objectively and in its totality, is reasonably directed toward the proper ends of the stop. By contrast, if the totality of the circumstances, viewed objectively, establishes that the officer, without reasonable suspicion, definitively abandoned the prosecution of the traffic stop and embarked on another sustained course of investigation, this would surely bespeak a lack of diligence. So, too, if the circumstances establish that, over the course of the entire stop, “questions unrelated to the traffic violation constituted the bulk of the interaction between the trooper and the [motorist].” 12”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Culp · State v. Simons

2. “[B]ecause the touchstone of any Fourth Amendment analysis is reasonableness, we must conduct a fact-bound, context-dependent inquiry in each case. Furthermore, we conclude that it would be inappropriate merely to evaluate the reasonableness of the interval of prolongation in isolation. Instead, the proper inquiry is whether the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop indicates that the duration of the stop as a whole — including any prolongation due to suspicionless unrelated questioning — was reasonable.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Goss · State v. Leyva

3. “[aln officer's inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop ... do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure, so- long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Hector Guajardo · 2011 UT App 209 - State v. Duhaime