651 So. 2d 78 - Huffman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view context . . . . ". . . Terry itself demonstrates that the sense of touch is capable of revealing the nature of an object with sufficient reliability to support a seizure. The very premise of Terry, after all, is that officers will be able to detect the presence of weapons through the sense of touch and Terry upheld precisely such a seizure. Even if it were true that the sense of touch is generally less reliable than the sense of sight, that only suggests that officers will less often be able to justify seizures of unseen contraband. Regardless of whether the officer detects the contraband by sight or by touch, however, the Fourth Amendment's requirement that the officer have probable cause to believe that the item is contraband before seizing it ensures against excessively speculative seizures."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Warren · 783 So. 2d 74 - Warren v. State

2. “I have made several other arrests in which crack cocaine was taken from the subject or found on the subject. I can tell the general outline of what a crack cocaine rock is.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 689 So. 2d 212 - Allen v. State

3. “where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 783 So. 2d 74 - Warren v. State