99 Wash. App. 575 - State v. Hansen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Thomas , the court held that a seizure occurred when an officer, while retaining the defendant's identification, took three steps back to conduct a warrants check on his hand-held radio. Thomas, 91 Wash.App. at 200-01 , 955 P.2d 420 . Similarly, in State v. Dudas, 52 Wash.App. 832, 834 , 764 P.2d 1012 (1988), the court determined that the defendant was seized under the Fourth Amendment when the deputy took his ID card and returned to the patrol car, thus immobilizing him. In Aranguren , the court found that a seizure occurred when an officer took the defendants' identification documents to his vehicle to write their names down and run warrants checks on them. Aranguren, 42 Wash.App. at 456 , 711 P.2d 1096 . Finally, in Armenta, our Supreme Court concluded that the defendant was seized when a police officer placed the defendant's money in his patrol car `for safe keeping.' Armenta, 134 Wash.2d at 6, 12 , 948 P.2d 1280 . In each of these cases, the officer removed defendant's identification or property from defendant's presence. Here, officers Teachworth and Brooks never removed Hansen's license from his presence. The officers held it for no more than 30 seconds while Brooks took note of Hansen's name and birth date. They did not retain Hansen's license for a lengthy period or while they conducted the warrants check. Had Teachworth alone viewed Hansen's license and returned it to him, the encounter would have maintained its consensual nature. There is no reason handing the l”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Crane · State v. Crane

2. “`Not every encounter between an officer and an individual amounts to a seizure.' State v. Armenta, 134 Wash.2d 1, 10 , 948 P.2d 1280 (1997) (quoting State v. Aranguren, 42 Wash.App. 452, 455 , 711 P.2d 1096 (1985)). A police officer has not seized an individual merely by approaching him in a public place and asking him questions, as long as the individual need not answer and may simply walk away. State v. Thomas, 91 Wash.App. 195, 200 , 955 P.2d 420 , review denied, 136 Wash.2d 1030 , 972 P.2d 467 (1998) (citations omitted). Moreover, police questioning relating to one's identity, or a request for identification by the police, without more, is unlikely to result in a seizure. Armenta, 134 Wash.2d at 11 , 948 P.2d 1280 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Crane · State v. Crane