State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, the appellate court looks at the totality of the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. State v. Bargeman, 98-617 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/28/98) ; 721 So.2d 964 , writ denied, 99-0033 (La.5/28/99); 743 So.2d 658 . Unless the trial court's conclusions are not supported by the evidence or there exists a clear abuse of discretion, an appellate court should not overturn the trial court's ruling. State v. Purvis, 96-787 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/96) ; 684 So.2d 567 (citing State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449 (La.1983)). In other words, the appellate court will give the trial court's determination great weight and will not set aside the trial court's ruling unless clearly mandated by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Lewis, 97-1244 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/98) ; 728 So.2d 1 .”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sherman · 854 So. 2d 989 - State v. Morris

2. “The trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress because the seizure of marijuana was the fruit of a traffic stop effected without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 5 of the Louisiana Constitution. The trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress because the marijuana was discovered as a result of an illegal search of the interior of the vehicle conducted without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 5 of the Louisiana Constitution. The trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress because the marijuana was discovered as a result of an illegally prolonged detention conducted without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 5 of the Louisiana Constitution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 980 So. 2d 251 - State v. Lewis

3. “An evaluation of whether a police officer had a reasonable basis for an investigatory stop requires looking objectively at the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the challenged action. [ State v. ] Bargeman, 98-617 [(La.App. 3 Cir. 10/28/98)]; 721 So.2d 964 [, writ denied, 99-33 (La.5/28/99); 743 So.2d 658 ]. A law enforcement officer cannot stop a person upon a generalized suspicion or hunch. Lewis, 97-1244; 728 So.2d 1 ; see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Instead, the officer must be able to articulate objective facts to support his suspicion of criminal activity. Id. Thereafter, deference must be given to the reasonable inferences drawn by the law enforcement officer in light of his experience. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 852 So. 2d 463 - State v. Malveaux