992 So. 2d 82 - State v. Green’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. ““It is well established that a police officer may make a brief investigatory stop of an individual based upon a ‘reasonable suspicion’ of criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). “In R.W. v. State, 913 So.2d 505, 510-11 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), we stated the following concerning ‘reasonable suspicion’: “ ‘[Reasonable suspicion is determined not by looking at each circumstance individually, but by looking at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the incident. As explained by the United States Supreme Court: “ ‘ “When discussing how reviewing courts should make reasonable-suspicion determinations, we have said repeatedly that they must look at the ‘totality of the circumstances’ of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a ‘particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting legal wrongdoing. See, e.g., [United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 ] at 417-418 [(1981)]. This process allows officers to draw on then-own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that ‘might well elude an untrained person.’ Id., at 418 . See also Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996) (reviewing court must give ‘due weight’ to factual inferences drawn by resident judges and local law enforcement officers). Although an officer’s reliance on a mere ‘ “hunch” ’ is insufficient to justify a stop, Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ] at 27 [(1968)], the likelihood ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 43 So. 3d 630 - State v. Dudley, Jr.

2. ““The United States Supreme Court in United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 , 109 S.Ct. 1581 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989), stated: “ ‘The Fourth Amendment requires “some minimal level of objective justification” for making the stop. INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 217 (1984). That level of suspicion is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence. We have held that probable cause means “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found,” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983), and the level of suspicion required for a Terry stop is obviously less demanding than that for probable cause, see United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 541, 544 (1985).’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Jemison