State v. Stevenson’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Antonio Aviles v. State (2012), Alford v. State (2000)
30 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Berkemer v. McCarty · Stansbury v. California · Boykin v. State · Dowthitt v. State
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this case, as in Stevenson , there is no evidence in the record of appellant’s subjective perception that he did not feel free to leave. There is no evidence in this record that [Officer] Miner manifested to appellant any intent to arrest until after the field sobriety testing was complete, and Miner informed appellant he was under arrest for DWI. We find that appellant’s investigation for field sobriety testing and questioning did not convert the roadside stop into an arrest. These acts are not sufficient to establish custody under Miranda.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The United States Supreme Court has held that a traffic stop does not constitute “custody” for Miranda purposes. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). We have recognized though, that subsequent events may cause a noncustodial encounter to escalate into custodial interrogation. Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244, 254-55 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). Ussery v. State, 651 S.W.2d 767, 770 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). See also Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 440 , 104 S.Ct. at 3150 . In determining whether a noncustodial encounter has so escalated, the four factors cited by appellee in his brief to the Court of Appeals are generally useful. Dowthitt , at 254-55. Meek v. State, 790 S.W.2d 618, 621-22 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). But those factors are relevant only to the extent that they are manifested to the suspect through the words and actions of law enforcement officials; “the custody determination is based entirely upon objective circumstances.” Dowthitt , at 254-55. See also Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 324-26 , 114 S.Ct. 1526, 1530 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293, 300 (1994). Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 442 , 104 S.Ct. at 3151-52 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hutto v. State“[e]ven if his wife did not possess some of the information, because she occupied the same vehicle as appellee, the required information could have been conveyed without stopping the vehicle.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCown 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.