State v. Benjamin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There was no reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant. All the while there were no articulable facts that the defendant was fleeing as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime. Although the defendant’s running from the scene upon seeing the officers is a factor to be considered, flight without more is insufficient to justify an investigatory stop where the officers did not know what might be in the defendant’s waistband. State v. Roberson, 549 So.2d 931 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989); State v. Ellington, 96-0766 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/4/96) , 680 So.2d 174 ; State v. Denis, 96-0956 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/19/97) , 691 So.2d 1295 , writ denied 97-1006 (La.6/20/97), 695 So.2d 1352 . Running and pulling on the waistband served as an impermissible substitute for the requisite reasonable suspicion. It is not a crime to run from the police while clutching one’s waistband.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brooks · State v. Neal

2. “... Drug activity and crimes that it generates have become a major problem endangering innocent people and severely taxing police resources. Although an innocent individual who has nothing to hide from police might flee so that such flight would be irrational, the action of fleeing in itself is inherently suspicious and justifies an investigation by a police officer exercising common sense. This is not a case of a man merely standing on a street corner who is detained by the police simply because he is there.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Devore