State v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In making a brief investigatory stop on less than probable cause to arrest, the police “ ‘must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’ ” State v. Kalie, 96-2650, p. 3 (La.9/19/97), 699 So.2d 879, 881 (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 , 101 S.Ct. 690, 695 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). The police must therefore articulate something more than “ ‘inchoate and unparticularized suspicion’ or “hunch.” ’ ” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 , 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585 , 104 L.Ed. 1 (1989) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). This level of suspicion, however, need not rise to the probable cause required for a lawful arrest. The police need have only “ ‘some minimal level of objective justification....’” Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 7 , 109 S.Ct. at 1585 (quoting INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 217 , 104 S.Ct. 1758, 1763 , 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984)). A reviewing court must take into account the “totality of the circumstances — the whole picture,” giving deference to the inferences and deductions of a trained officer that might well elude an untrained person. Cortez, 449 U.S. at 418 , 101 S.Ct. at 695 . The court must also weigh the circumstances known to the police “ ‘not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those |Kversed in the field'of law enforcement.’ Id. ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 828 So. 2d 614 - State v. Lewis · 792 So. 2d 93 - State v. Allen