Frederick v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When we review a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we do not interfere with the findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. When the district court has not made specific findings of fact, we will uphold its general ruling if the ruling is supportable by any reasonable view of the evidence. We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the distinct court’s ruling because of the district court’s ability to assess ‘the credibility of the witnesses, weigh the evidence, and make the necessary inferences, deductions, and conclusions’ at the hearing on the motion.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gunn v. State · Meek v. State

2. “requires only the presence of specific and articulable facts and rational inferences which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or may be committing a crime.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Meek v. State · McChesney v. State

3. “On December 16, 1997, Michael Mathews, a chief deputy sheriff with the Roosevelt County sheriffs office in Wolf Point, Montana, received a call from a confidential informant. Chief Deputy Mathews knew the informant and had received credible and reliable information from the informant on two prior occasions within a two-month period. The informant stated that Michelle Buckles and “Spook” Frederick were on their way to Denver, Colorado, in a red Dodge Daytona to purchase some marijuana and methamphetamine. The informant advised that the two people had left Poplar, Montana, on December 16th and were expected to re-ten late on December 16th. The informant gained this knowledge from a conversation that he overheard between Buckles and a third party on December 15th. The next day, the informant spoke directly with the third party, and that party confirmed the information. Using a motor vehicle division’s computer ABC check, Chief Deputy Mathews determined the year and the license plate number of a red Dodge Daytona which was registered to Michelle Buckles. He knew that Buckles was an Indian female, so he examined the ■ tribal enrollment book to ascertain her birth date. He also knew that “Spook” Frederick’s real name was Shane Frederick. Armed with this information, Chief Deputy Mathews transmitted a teletype, known as a BOLO, to other law enforcement agencies, including the Gillette police department, asking them to be on the lookout for these two individuals who were making a dru”

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