Ex Parte James’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" ' "[W]hen an officer, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, approaches an individual, the individual has a right to ignore the police and go about his business.... [ Florida v. Royer , 460 U.S. 491 , 498 (1983) ]. And any 'refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.' Florida v. Bostick , 501 U.S. 429 , 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382 , 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). But unprovoked flight is simply not a mere refusal to cooperate. Flight, by its very nature, is not 'going about one's business'; in fact, it is just the opposite. Allowing officers confronted with such flight to stop the fugitive and investigate further is quite consistent with the individual's right to go about his business or to stay put and remain silent in the face of police questioning ." ' "”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. WDH v. State · T.D.F. v. State

2. “" Terry permits a police officer to conduct a patdown search of a suspect's outer clothing to `discover guns, knives, clubs or other hidden instruments [which may be used] for the assault of the police officer.' 392 U.S. at 29 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 (emphasis added). The police officer may intrude beneath the outer surface of the suspect's clothing only if the police officer feels an object he reasonably suspects may be a weapon. Terry, 392 U.S. at 30 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 . ".... "In the case before us, Officer Gill did not pat down the outer surface of James's pants pocket to determine if a weapon was present and did not `inadvertently discover' the marijuana cigarettes under the `plain-feel' doctrine. When Officer Gill saw James attempt to reach his hand into his pants pocket, Gill moved James's hand, reached into the pants pocket, and removed the marijuana cigarettes. Officer Gill admitted that he did not pat down the pocket before he reached inside the pocket. Also, there was no evidence that Gill feared for his safety when he saw James attempt to put his hand in his pocket. Therefore, Officer Gill violated James's right against unreasonable search and seizure when he reached into James's pocket without any legally recognized justification gained from first patting down the outer surface of the pocket to determine whether a weapon was present."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 884 So. 2d 3 - Smith v. State · 28 So. 3d 29 - Bah v. State

3. “"[A] police officer may conduct a brief investigatory stop of a person if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by `specific and articuable [sic] facts' that the individual is, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. The officer may also conduct a patdown search of the outer clothing of the person if the officer `is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others.'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. WDH v. State · W.D.H. v. State