Woods v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
172 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 172 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Carmouche v. State (2000), Balentine v. State (2002)
172 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
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Cortez · United States v. Sokolow · United States v. Brignoni-Ponce · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas
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 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he reasonableness of a temporary detention must be examined in terms of the totality of the circumstances and will be justified when the detaining officer has specific articulable facts, which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, lead him to conclude that the person detained actually is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Garcia v. State · King v. State“as consistent with innocent activity as with criminal activity”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Loesch v. State · Wolf v. State“Reconsidering the matter, we are of the view that the [Irwin v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 1 Cal.3d 423 , 82 Cal.Rptr. 484 , 462 P.2d 12 (Cal.1969)] dictum cannot be squared with the rule that a reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity will justify a temporary stop or detention. Under that standard, if circumstances are “consistent with criminal activity,” they permit — even demand — an investigation: the public rightfully expects a police officer to inquire into such circumstances “in the proper discharge of the officer’s duties.” No reason appears for a contrary result simply because the circumstances are also “consistent with lawful activity,” as may often be the case. The possibility of an innocent explanation does not deprive the officer of the capacity to entertain reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. Indeed, the principal function of his investigation is to resolve that very ambiguity and establish whether the activity is in fact legal or illegal — to “enable the police to quickly determine whether they should allow the suspect to go about his business or hold him to answer charges.” The citizen’s undoubted interest in freedom from abuse of this procedure is protected — so far as it is in the law’s power to do so—by the correlative rule that no stop or detention is permissible when the circumstances are not reasonably “consistent with criminal activity” and the investigation is therefore based on mere curiosity, rumor or hunch. Because t”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re JDB · Curtis v. State
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.