State v. Leday’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court considers the totality of the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. Furthermore, unless the trial court's ruling is not supported by the evidence or it is clearly an abuse of discretion, it is not to be overturned by the appellate court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 996 So. 2d 1253 - State v. Bayonne · 87 So. 3d 318 - State v. White

2. “While an arrest requires officers to have probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed a crime, see U.S. Const, amend. IV and La. Const, art. I, § 5, an investigatory stop requires a lesser stan dard of “reasonable suspicion.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). In Louisiana, the investigatory “Temy ” stop is codified in La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 215.1(A): “A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.” Like an arrest, an investigatory stop entails a complete restriction of movement, although for a shorter period of time. State v. Bailey, 410 So.2d 1123, 1125 (La.1982). In making a brief investigatory stop, the police “must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” State v. Kalie, 96-2650, p. 3 (La.9/19/97), 699 So.2d 879, 881 (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 6411 , 417-418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). Specifically, our courts have interpreted article 215.1 to require that an officer point to specific and artic-ulable facts to justify an investigatory stop. State v. Huntley, 97-0965, p. 3 (La.3/13/98), 708 So.2d 1048, 1049 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 87 So. 3d 318 - State v. White

3. “[t]he trial court erred in denying [his] motion to suppress all evidence seized in the custody of the defendant in violation of his Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 996 So. 2d 1253 - State v. Bayonne