Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 12 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Colstad.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Colstad Anchor | green | “becomes aware of additional suspicious factors which are sufficient to give rise to an articulable suspicion that the person has committed or is committing an offense or offenses separate” | 4 |
| 2 | State v. Patrick I. Hogan | green | “a suspicion grounded in specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences from those facts, that the individual has committed or was committing or is about to commit a crime.” | 4 |
| 3 | State v. Patrick I. Hogan | green | “officer may stop a vehicle when he or she reasonably believes the driver is violating, or has violated, a traffic law.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.