Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2015
8 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 · Illinois v. Gates · United States v. Mendenhall · United States v. Cortez · United States v. Sokolow
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.
“"It is well established that "`a police officer may make a brief investigatory detention based upon a "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity. This court in State v. Bodereck, 549 So.2d 542 , 545-46 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), quoting from United States v. Post, 607 F.2d 847 , 850 (9th Cir. 1979), discussed "reasonable suspicion" as mentioned in Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968),] and stated: "`"`[T]he quantum of cause necessary to justify an investigatory stop is a "reasonable" or "founded" suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a criminal act . . . . The founded suspicion must arise from specific facts and not inchoate hunches, but the officer is entitled to draw inferences from those facts in light of his experience.'"' "Gaskin v. State, 565 So.2d 675 , 677 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990) (emphasis added [in Williams]). When evaluating whether reasonable suspicion for a stop exists, we require that the police officer be able to "`"point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. Terry v. Ohio . . . . The appropriate question to ask is `. . . [W]ould the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure the search "warrant a man of caution in the belief" that the action taken was appropriate?'. Terry v. Ohio, . . . Daniels v. State, 290 Ala. 316 , 276 So.2d 441 (1973)." "`Sterling v. State, 421 So.2d 1375 , 1379 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).'"”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. RW v. State · State v. McPherson“It is well established that "`a police officer may make a brief investigatory detention based upon a "reasonable suspicion”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. RW v. State · State v. McPherson“"`"point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. Terry v. Ohio .... The appropriate question to ask is `... [W]ould the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief" that the action taken was appropriate?'. Terry v. Ohio , . . . Daniels v. State, 290 Ala. 316 , 276 So.2d 441 (1973)." "` Sterling v. State, 421 So.2d 1375, 1379 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).' " Gaskin, 565 So.2d at 677 ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. RW v. State · State v. Murray
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.