Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 613 SO2D 259 - State v. Williams

State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
October 2009
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · 441 So. 2d 1195 - State v. Belton · 434 So. 2d 389 - State v. Andrishok

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

  1. “In the instant case, the state has not met this burden. The defendant's presence in a high crime area, coupled with his attempted flight while reaching into his pocket, did not give the officers legal cause to conduct a search beyond a pat down for weapons. Assuming arguendo that the deputies had the right to detain the defendant when he tried to leave, after the defendant was frisked and no weapon was found, the deputies had no right to further detain the defendant and keep him handcuffed in the police car because they had no probable cause to believe a crime was committed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “A. A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions. B. When a law enforcement officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this article and reasonably suspects that he is in danger, he may frisk the outer clothing of such person for a dangerous weapon. If the law enforcement officer reasonably suspects the person possesses a dangerous weapon, he may search the person.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.