United States v. Foreste’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity supported by specific and articulable facts.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Lucas · United States v. Campbell

2. “Ordinarily, of course, stops for separate traffic infractions are unrelated, and any extensions of those stops for investigation are unrelated as well. But looking only to whether independent traffic violations support successive traffic stops would create a rule subject to ... gamesmanship.... One officer could stop a vehicle for a traffic infraction on a common drug corridor, become suspicious of the driver’s nervousness or explanation for his trip, and then detain the vehicle while a drug-sniffing dog is called to the scene. If the dog took too long to arrive (or, upon arriving, failed to detect any drugs), the officer could telephone a second officer down the road and apprise him of the situation. The second officer could then follow the vehicle until spotting a second traffic infraction, stop the vehicle, and, based on the suspicions relayed by the first officer, detain the vehicle a second time to again wait for a dog.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Gorman

3. “Traffic stops are presumptively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if the officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic infraction has occurred.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Lucas