See it in action
From case research to litigation strategy
in seconds.
Walk through a real example — a Fourth Amendment unlawful stop case — and see how CaseMatchAI turns case research into courtroom advantage.
1
Search
›
2
Case Matches
›
3
Strategy Intelligence
Describe your case
Matching against 180,000+ transcribed cases
Case Matches
1
United States v. Sokolow
490 U.S. 1 (1989) · 9th Circuit · Affirmed
Court examined whether DEA agents had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant at airport based on drug courier profile factors. Totality of circumstances test applied — individual innocent factors may combine to support reasonable suspicion.
Why matched: Nearly identical Fourth Amendment suppression posture. Both involve multi-factor reasonable suspicion analysis. 9th Circuit totality-of-circumstances framework directly applicable to your cracked windshield / pretext stop argument.
94%
Match
2
Illinois v. Wardlow
528 U.S. 119 (2000) · 9th Circuit · Reversed
Whether unprovoked flight from police in high-crime area justifies Terry stop. Court held flight is a factor, but location alone is insufficient for reasonable suspicion.
Why matched: Directly addresses the threshold for reasonable articulable suspicion — the crux of your suppression argument. Wardlow limits broad "neighborhood factors" as a standalone basis for stops.
88%
Match
3
Rodriguez v. United States
575 U.S. 348 (2015) · 9th Circuit · Reversed
Police cannot extend an otherwise completed traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff without independent reasonable suspicion. Authority for stop ends when tasks tied to infraction are completed.
Why matched: Cracked windshield stop + subsequent vehicle search mirrors Rodriguez's pretext extension framework. Strongly supports argument that officer exceeded scope of lawful stop.
81%
Match
4
United States v. Arvizu
534 U.S. 266 (2002) · 9th Circuit · Reversed
Totality-of-circumstances approach prohibits courts from dissecting individual factors in isolation. Deference given to trained officer inference even where individual behaviors are innocent.
Why matched: Government will likely cite Arvizu to defend officer inference. Knowing this case lets you preemptively address deference arguments and distinguish the factual record.
74%
Match
Matter: State v. Thompson / 9th Circuit · Defense
Litigation Strategy Intelligence
Based on 147 matched cases · Generated in 3.2s
Win Probability
Suppression Outlook
68%
✓ Favorable for Defense
Judge Intelligence
Hon. M. D. Reinhardt
9th Cir. — Panel B
18 yrs on bench · 312 4th Amendment cases
Grants suppression
71%
Skeptical of pretext
63%
Favors strict RAS
58%
Recommended Arguments
Strongest Win Paths
1
Cracked windshield fails as objective RAS — officer testimony shows subjective hunch, not articulable suspicion. Rodriguez v. US directly on point.
High
2
Search exceeded scope of traffic stop before any independent basis existed. No consent, no warrant, no valid exception at the moment of search.
High
3
Even if initial stop survived, duration extension for vehicle search lacks independent justification — Wardlow/Rodriguez framework applies to extension.
Med
Settlement Analysis
Resolution Patterns
41%
Suppression granted
27%
Plea deal reached
22%
Case dismissed
Strong suppression motion typically forces a favorable plea offer within 60 days in this circuit. File motion first — government rarely proceeds to trial after a strong Rodriguez challenge.
Jury Intelligence
Voir Dire Angles
Probe bias on police credibility — prior contact with law enforcement, attitudes toward traffic stops
Flag jurors who believe officers always need a "real reason" to stop someone
Watch for jurors who assume contraband = guilt regardless of how it was found
Exclude: strong law-and-order backgrounds, prior work in law enforcement or prosecution
Opposing Counsel
A. Martinez, AUSA
Totality argument
82%
Files to exclude expert
55%
Counter: Martinez struggles when defendant's record is clean. Preemptively establish client's lack of priors — it consistently weakens government's reasonable suspicion narrative.
Ready to run this on your actual case?
Get a full exportable strategy packet — motion drafts, judge intelligence, and win path analysis — in under 60 seconds.