Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 802 So. 2d 887 - State v. Vingle

802 So. 2d 887 - State v. Vingle’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
October 2014
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Cortez · United States v. Sokolow · United States v. Brignoni-Ponce · Minnesota v. Dickerson

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

  1. “We agree with the court of appeal that “the fact a white man is walking in a predominantly black high crime or drug trafficking area does not constitute reasonable cause to stop him.” [State v.] Wilson, 99-2392 at 7 [ (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/22/99), 759 So.2d 351 ]. See United States v. Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286, 1289 (9th Cir.1982) (“Race or color alone is not a sufficient basis for making an investigatory stop.”) (citing United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 886-87 , 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2582-83 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975)). Officer Michael Glasser was therefore not entitled to act solely on the basis of his “extensive experience in purchasing narcotics” in the area of the Iberville Housing Project in New Orleans, “that it’s an unfortunate but a common occurrence that white people will go into the [area] in an effort to try to obtain contraband that they cannot get elsewhere, or feel that they can’t get elsewhere.” However, the officer made clear in his testimony at the suppression hearing that while racial incongruity “did factor in,” he considered other circumstances more important in his decision to make an investigatory stop.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[Tjhere was no evidence of evasive conduct on the part of the defendant. She did not appear intoxicated. She was simply driving through a neighborhood in the broad daylight at 10:00 a.m. She pulled over when a police car appeared behind her, was stopped, and ordered out of the car. She did not attempt to flee, and she did not disobey an order to stop. There was no testimony that she made any furtive movements such as trying to hide something under the seat. Before being stopped, she did not appear nervous or give a startled look. At the time of the stop, there was no evidence of a gun and no evidence of paraphernalia. There was no tip from any informant that she was engaged in any suspicious behavior at all. As such, there could be no corroboration. The officers stopped the defendant for two simple reasons: she was a white woman in a black | ^neighborhood, and she was driving a brand new car with temporary plates.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.