7 Va. App. 305 - Moss v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] person is “seized” only when, by means ofphysical force or a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained. Only when such restraint is imposed is there any foundation whatever for invoking constitutional safeguards. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is not to eliminate all contact between the police and the citizenry, but “to prevent arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with the privacy and personal security of individuals.” As long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person’s liberty or privacy as would under the Constitution require some particularized and objective justification.... We conclude that a person has been “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas v. Com. · 14 Va. App. 474 - Bethea v. Commonwealth

2. ““The essential purpose of the proscriptions in the Fourth Amendment is to impose a standard of ‘reasonableness’ upon the exercise of discretion by government officials ... in order ‘to safe-guard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions.’ ” It is well-established that “a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.” However, the officer must have a “reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the individual is involved in criminal activity.” . . . “[I]n the absence of any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest and appellant’s right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Adams v. Commonwealth

3. “[i]n the absence of any basis for suspecting [the defendant] of misconduct, the balance between the public interest and [defendant’s] personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Davis