Cook v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[[Image here]] These factors together with the reasonable inferences which can be drawn therefrom are the “specific and articulable facts” required for an investigatory stop. Eyewitness descriptions of a crime are, by their very nature, not exact. The defendant and his vehicle fell within the realm of possible suspects when the factors and the reasonable inferences drawn from such are taken into account. Furthermore, defendant was traveling in a direction from Fort Collins approximately one and a half hours after the crime. Defendant attempts to claim that he was not “within the range of possible flight” because it is only about 45 miles to Fort Collins from Cheyenne and, if the robber had come that way, he would have already been long past. However, defendant makes the unwarranted assumption that the robber would have fled Fort Collins immediately after the robbery. It is not unreasonable to anticipate that the robber may have taken an indirect route or even stopped somewhere before leaving the city. Therefore, the time difference between the robbery and defendant’s appearance on 1-25 near Cheyenne is not so great as to remove him from “the range of possible flight.” While acknowledging that there are differences between the description and defendant, we find that they are sufficiently close to constitute specific and articulable facts which - would give rise to a reasonable suspicion that defendant may have been the one who committed the robbery in Fort Collins. The circu”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Collins v. State · Medrano v. State

2. “"(a) It is the responsibility of court and counsel to insure to each person charged with crime a speedy trial. “(b) A criminal charge shall be brought to trial within 120 days following the filing of information or indictment. “(c) The following periods shall be excluded in computing the time for trial: “(1) All proceedings related to the mental illness or deficiency of the defendant. "(2) Proceedings on another charge. "(3) Delay granted by the court pursuant to Section (d). "(4) The time between the dismissal and the refiling of the same charge. "(5) Delay occasioned by defendant’s change of counsel or application therefor. “(d) Continuances may be granted as follows: "(1) On motion of defendant supported by affidavit of defendant and defendant's counsel. "(2) On motion of the prosecuting attorney or the court if: "(i) The defendant expressly consents; or “(ii) The state’s evidence is unavailable and the prosecution has exercised due diligence; or "(in) Required in the due administration of justice and the defendant will not be substantially prejudiced. “(e) Upon receiving notice of possible delay the defendant shall show in writing how the delay may prejudice his defense. "(f) If the defendant is unavailable for any proceeding at which his presence is required, the time period shall begin anew upon defendant’s being available.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Caton v. State

3. “a trained officer draws inferences and makes deductions-inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person. The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities. Long before the law of probabilities was articulated as such, practical people formulated certain common sense conclusions about human behavior; jurors as factfinders are permitted to do the same-and so are law enforcement officers. Finally, the evidence thus collected must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement. [[Image here]] . [When used by trained law enforcement officers, objective facts, meaningless to the untrained, can be combined with permissible deductions from such facts to form a legitimate basis for suspicion of a particular person and for action on that suspicion. | - ~”

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