7 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 71 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 Jaganathan, Francheska v..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jaganathan, Francheska v. Anchor | green | “an officer may make a warrantless traffic stop if the 'reasonable suspicion' standard is satisfied.” | 18 |
| 2 | Hamal, Angela Dodd | green | “some minimal level of objective justification” | 16 |
| 3 | State v. Cortez | green | “when a police officer stops a defendant without a warrant, the state has the burden of proving the reasonableness of the stop at a suppression hearing.” | 9 |
| 4 | Hamal, Angela Dodd | green | “the standard requires only 'some minimal level of objective justification' for the stop.” | 8 |
| 5 | Jaganathan, Francheska v. | green | “specific articulable facts that, when combined with rational inferences from those facts, would lead him to reasonably suspect that a particular person has engaged or is (or soon will be) engaging in criminal activity.” | 8 |
| 6 | Jaganathan, Francheska v. | green | “reasonable suspicion exists if the officer has specific articulable facts that, when combined with rational inferences from those facts, would lead him to reasonably suspect that a particular person has engaged or is (or soon will be) engaging in criminal activity.” | 6 |
| 7 | State v. Cortez | green | “we review a reasonable suspicion determination by considering the totality of the circumstances.” | 6 |
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.