845 So. 2d 233 - State v. McClendon’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
April 2016
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Pennsylvania v. Mimms · Rogala v. District of Columbia · 596 So. 2d 442 - Doctor v. State · Wilson v. State · 573 So. 2d 157 - Doctor v. State
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.
“In the present case, the officer saw a car parked in the middle of the road without lights after midnight. The officer testified that the passenger got out of the car, leaned on the hood, and asked the officer what was going on. While the defendant testified that he had wanted to go to a nearby gas station, he admitted he neither began to walk in that direction nor advised the officer that he wanted to leave the area of the vehicle. Further, the officer testified that he could not see one of the passengers hands, which made him fear for his safety. Under these circumstances, the officer's instruction to the passenger to sit inside the vehicle did not run afoul of the constitution. Using the balancing test articulated in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), we find the officer's direction to the defendant to have been a "reasonable governmental invasion" of the defendant's "personal security." Id. at 109 , 98 S.Ct. 330 . An officer's interest in protecting himself or a fellow officer against an unsuspected assault by a driver or passenger and against accidental injury from passing traffic is both legitimate and weighty and the intrusion into the driver's or passenger's personal liberty is de minimis. Doctor v. State, 573 So.2d 157, 159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 596 So.2d 442 (Fla.1992). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reviewed facts similar to the ones in this case in Rogala v. Dist”
2 later decisions 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.