Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

124 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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “law enforcement officers may stop and briefly detain persons suspected of criminal activity on less information than is constitutionally required for probable cause to arrest.” Johnson, 912 S.W.2d at 235 (quoting Crockett v. State, 803 S.W.2d 308, 311 (Tex.Crim.App.1991)). 7 . Officer Glick served as school liaison officer at the school for twelve years.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Morgan v. State · Dittoe v. State

2. “A plain reading and comparison of the language of the Fourth Amendment and Art. I, § 9 reveals no substantive difference .... The Fourth Amendment and Art. I, § 9 both protect the same right (freedom from unreasonable search and seizures) to the same degree (persons, houses, papers, and effects/possessions). [[Image here]] In Autran v. State, ... the plurality believed there had to be an underlying intent for the two provisions to be different because a narrow construction would leave Art. I, § 9, specifically, and the Texas Constitution, generally, void of independent meaning. It would be practically impossible to discern from the language, alone, of Art. I, § 9 the intent of the citizens who framed that provision. There is little if any evidence of the intent of the Framers of Art. I, § 9. We are left with the impression that the language of Art. I, § 9 is virtually identical to the language of the Fourth Amendment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rothenberg v. State

3. “We find that the police officers acted reasonably when they approached the vehicle in which the appellant was slumped unconscious on a public highway, awakened the appellant, and asked him to step out so they could see if he was in need of assistance. We hold that Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution was not violated by their actions. We do this, not by finding that there is a community care-taking exception to a warrant requirement, but by asking whether, from the totality of the circumstances, after considering the public and private interests that are at stake, their action was an unreasonable seizure. It was not.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ross