United States v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
928 F.2d 1113 · 1991
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably United States v. Botero-Ospina (1995), United States v. Martinez (1992)
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 20 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Sokolow · United States v. Sharpe · Colorado v. Bertine · Florida v. Wells
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A law enforcement officer "may conduct a brief investigative stop of a vehicle, analogous to a Terry -stop, if the seizure is justified by specific articulable facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct." United States v. Strickland, 902 F.2d 937, 940 (11th Cir. 1990). An investigatory stop which is solely based upon "inarticulate hunches" or "unparticularized suspicion" is invalid. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22, 27 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880, 1883 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Further, "investigatory stops are invalid as pretextual unless `a reasonable officer would have made the seizure in the absence of illegitimate motivation.'" Strickland, 902 F.2d at 940 (quoting United States v. Smith, 799 F.2d 704, 708 (11th Cir.1986)) (emphasis in original).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The testimony showed that Harris weaved into the emergency lane on two separate occasions during a one-mile stretch on Interstate 75. Deputy Peavy did not make the stop until Harris weaved the second time. A reasonable officer would have concluded that Harris was either driving under the influence in violation of state law, or falling asleep at the wheel. Since the stop would have been justified under either conclusion, it was not unconstitutional. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Huckin“Where ... the initial stop was legal, the [officer] had the duty to investigate suspicious circumstances that then came to his attention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.