884 So. 2d 3 - Smith v. State’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. “"`Police may conduct a patdown search without a warrant if, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer has an articulable, reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity and that he is armed. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The reasonableness of the search is measured objectively. If a reasonably prudent person would believe that his safety, or the safety of others, is endangered, he may conduct a limited search of outer clothing to discover any weapons. Id. at 27 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 .' " United States v. Raymond, 152 F.3d 309, 312 (4th Cir.1998). `And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given ... to the specific reasonable inference which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.' Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Cheatwood · B.A.H. v. State

2. “`is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.' [ Terry, ] 392 U.S. at 30 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 .”

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

3. “"In State v. Hails , 814 So.2d [980] at 987 [(Ala.Crim.App. 2000)], this Court stated that a Terry patdown: "`"`"is limited in scope to a `patdown' of the suspects' outer clothing and to seizure of hard objects whose size and shape give the officer probable cause to believe they are weapons."'" Martin v. State , 695 So.2d 141 , 143 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996) (quoting Smith v. State , 292 Ala. 120 , 289 So.2d 816 , 818 (Ala. 1974)). "Having detected the presence of an unknown, potentially dangerous object on a suspect during a frisk, the test for whether an officer may search farther and seize the item is an objective one." United States v. Swann , 149 F.3d [271,] 275 [(4th Cir. 1998)]. It is objectively reasonable for an officer to seize what he or she reasonably believes to be a weapon when the object is approximately the same size and shape as a box cutter, which is often used as a weapon. Id. at 276. Applying the law to the facts of this case, it was reasonable for Doty to seize the credit card. During Doty's patdown search of Hails, he felt something "small and hard" that he believed could have been a razor blade, letter opener, or box cutter in her front jacket pocket. (R. 7.) Doty also testified that he knew that "a box cutter can come in the shape of a credit card." (R. 19.) This knowledge led Doty to reasonably believe that the small, hard, thin object in Hails's jacket pocket could have been a weapon. (R. 19.) In order to assure himself that what he felt in Hails['s] pocke”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 901 So. 2d 759 - Davis v. State