State v. Sierra’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2000 · most notably State v. Lopez (1994), State v. Webb (1990)
36 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 · Wong Sun v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · United States v. Mendenhall · United States v. Cortez
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the facts [must] be judged against an objective standard: would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search “warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief” that the action taken was appropriate? Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lopez · State v. Talbot“focus [is] on whether a hypothetical reasonable officer, in view of the totality of the circumstances confronting him or her, would have stopped [the defendant] to issue a [citation].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lopez · State v. Lopez“In determining the validity of the stop of [defendant's] automobile by [the officer], we therefore are not concerned with [the officer's] subjective intent. His actions and his description of the circumstances surrounding the stop are, however, relevant to our inquiry. Thus, while [the officer's] courtroom declaration of motive is intriguing, what turns this case is the overwhelming objective evidence that [the officer] had no interest in investigating possible drunk driving charges: he began pursuit before he observed any "weaving" and, even after he stopped the car, he made no investigation of the possibility of intoxication. That he described the vehicle as being driven with an abundance of caution further indicates that the stop was unrelated to any possible concern with traffic safety. Based on this objective evidence, we conclude that a reasonable officer would not have stopped the car absent an additional, invalid purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lopez
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.