People v. Wells’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2005
14 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Adams v. Williams · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A subjective and unarticulated hunch of criminal activity will not support the “reasonable suspicion” necessary for an investigatory stop. On the contrary, “[t]he reasonable suspicion necessary for an investigative stop must be judged against an objective standard — that is, whether there were specific and articula-ble facts known to the officer, which taken together with rational inferences from these facts, created a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the intrusion into the defendant’s personal security.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is only when a person’s effort to avoid police contact is coupled with an officer’s specific knowledge connecting that person to some other action or circumstance indicative of criminal conduct that the evasive action, whether running or otherwise, takes on a sufficiently suspicious character to justify a stop_ An officer, for example, who sees a person running from the scene of some reported or observed criminal activity would have a specific and articulable basis in fact to stop that person ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Perez“Three conditions must exist before a person may be subjected to an investigative stop: (1) there must be a specific and articulable basis in fact for suspecting that criminal activity has occurred, is taking place, or is about to take place; (2) the purpose of the stop must be reasonable; and (3) the scope and character of the stop must be reasonably related to its purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Perez
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.