665 So. 2d 112 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 2017
12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Ybarra v. Illinois · Michigan v. Summers · Logiudice v. Georgia · 441 So. 2d 1195 - State v. Belton
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The officer need not be absolutely certain that the person is armed, but the officer must be warranted in his belief that his safety or that of others is in danger.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The authorization for a temporary stop by a police officer of a person in a public place is set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 215.1, which provides in part: 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. See also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Smith, 94-1502 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1/19/95), 649 So.2d 1078 ; State v. Carey, 609 So.2d 897 (La.App. 4th Cir.1992). As this court noted in Smith: A police officer has the right to stop a person and investigate conduct when he has a reasonable suspicion that the person is, has been, or is about to be engaged in criminal conduct. La.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 215.1 (West 1991); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Andrishok, 434 So.2d 389 (La.1983). Reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop is something less than probable cause; and, it must be determined under the facts of each case whether the officer had sufficient articulable knowledge of particular facts and circumstances to justify an infringement upon an individual's right to be free from governmental interference. State v. Albert, 553 So.2d 967 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989); State v. Smith, 489 So.2d 966 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1986). The totality of the circumstances must be considered in determining whether reasonable suspicion exi”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Anderson“mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity.”
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.