884 So. 2d 1176 - State v. Long’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

51 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “actual stop” of the individual is imminent. State v. Tucker, 626 So.2d 707 (La 5/24/93); La. Const. Art. 1, § 5. In Tucker , this Court decided that under Louisiana’s slightly broader definition of the term, a”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Young · 891 So. 2d 707 - State v. Hopkins

2. “Trial courts are vested with great discretion when ruling on a motion to suppress. Consequently, the ruling of a trial judge on a motion to suppress will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 997 So. 2d 904 - State v. Rector · 252 So. 3d 973 - State v. Klein

3. “The two officers, after following Francis to his residence, approached him, told him that he was under investigation for the distribution of marijuana, and advised him of his rights. There is no evidence of any physical contact between the two officers and Francis, nor did the officers order Francis to submit to any of their commands. However, they did exercise their rights to ask questions of Francis after specifically communicating to him that he was not required to answer them. When asked by the officers if he was transporting any marijuana, Francis admitted that he had marijuana in the back seat of his automobile. Only then did the officers take Francis into custody and search his vehicle, thereby discovering the three pounds of marijuana packaged in gallon-sized “Ziploc” bags. Given these facts, based on the relevant federal and state law, 6 we cannot say that the search of Francis’s vehicle was the product of an | ¿unlawful seizure. When the officers approached the vehicle, a reasonable, innocent person would not believe that he was under arrest. Thus, the admission that Francis had marijuana in his possession was not the fruit of an illegal seizure, b.ut rather it provided the requisite probable cause for the arrest of Francis and search of his vehicle.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 891 So. 2d 707 - State v. Hopkins