Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Dumas, 786 So. 2d 80.

31 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. K.B. La. 2025
State of Louisiana v. Kevin Dupart La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
5/4/01), (citing State v. Kalie, 96-2650, p. 3 (La.
State v. Miguel 211 So. 3d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
5/4/01), (citing State v. Kalie, 96-2650, p. 3 (La.
State v. Fields 151 So. 3d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Dumas, 00-0862, pp. 2-3 (La.5/4/01), -82 .
State v. Beal 142 So. 3d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Dumas, 00-0862 (La.5/04/01), .
State v. McClendon 133 So. 3d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Our review is “an objective inquiry into the totality of the circumstances surrounding the encounter,” State v. Dumas, 00-0862, p. 2 (La.5/4/01), (citing State v. Kalie, 96-2650, p. 3 (La.9/19/97), ), and calls for consideration of whether “the facts available to the officer at the moment 19of the seizure ...
State v. Candebat 133 So. 3d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See also State v. Dumas, 2000-0862, pp. 2-3 (La.5/4/01), -82 .
State v. Carter 131 So. 3d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
This review is “an objective inquiry into the totality of the circumstances surrounding the encounter,” State v. Dumas, 00-0862, p. 2 (La.5/4/01), (citing State v. Kalie, 96-2650, p. 3 (La.9/19/97), ), and calls for consideration of whether “the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure ...
State v. Lockett 120 So. 3d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Dumas, 00-0862, pp. 2-3 (La.5/4/01), -82 .
State v. Butler 101 So. 3d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Rather, the reasonableness of a frisk is governed by an objective standard, Sims, supra; State v. Dumas, 2000-0862, pp. 2-3 (La.5/4/01), -82 , and requires only that an officer establish only that a “substantial possibility” of danger existed, not that it was more probable than not that the detained individual was armed and dangerous.
State v. Simpson 77 So. 3d 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Dumas, 00-0862, pp. 2-3 (La.5/04/01), .
State v. Mulder 76 So. 3d 1241 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The reasonableness of a frisk is governed *1247 by an objective standard, Sims, supra; State v. Dumas, 2000-0862, pp. 2-8 (La.5/4/2001), , and requires only that an officer establish a “substantial possibility” of danger existed, not that it was more probable than not that the detained individual was armed and dangerous.
State v. Bell 70 So. 3d 1052 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The Louisiana Supreme Court has observed that, in evaluating an officer’s reasonableness, “[t]he relevant question is not whether the police officer subjectively believes he is in danger, or whether he articulates that subjective belief in his testimony at a suppression hearing.” State v. Dumas, 00-0862, pp. 2-3 (La.5/4/01), -82 .
State v. Sander 69 So. 3d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Dumas, 00-0862, pp. 2-3 (La.5/04/01), .
State v. Francis 60 So. 3d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The Louisiana Supreme Court has observed that, in evaluating an officer’s reasonableness, “[t]he relevant question is not whether the police officer subjectively believes he is in danger, or whether he articulates that subjective belief in his testimony at a suppression hearing.” State v. Dumas, 00-0862, pp. 2-3 (Lag/4/01),10 -82 .
State Ex Rel. Jm 30 So. 3d 727 La. 2010
State v. Dumas, 00-0862, pp. 2-3 (La.5/4/01), .
State ex rel. J.M. 30 So. 3d 727 La. 2010
State v. Dumas, 00-0862, pp. 2-3 (La.5/4/01), .
State v. Smith 28 So. 3d 1162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Thomas 8 So. 3d 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Dumas, 00-0862, pp. 2-3 (La.5/04/01), .
State v. Lazard 2 So. 3d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
but ‘whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.’ ” State v. Dumas, 00-0862, pp. 2-3 (La.5/4/01), -82 , quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Boyer 967 So. 2d 458 La. 2007
State v. Dumas, 2000-862, p. 2 (La.5/4/01), .
State v. Cox 963 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996)—upheld a pretextual traffic stop in a situation where the officers had another agenda, other than the observed traffic infraction, finding the stop to be objectively reasonable; • State v. Dumas, 2000-0862 (La.5/4/01), —A Shreveport Police Officer frisked an acquaintance, even though the officer personally felt no fear.
State v. Sewell 912 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
State v. Hollimon 900 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Dumas, 00-862 (La.5/4/01), .
State v. Bradley 867 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
State v. Dumas, 2000-0862, pp. 2-3 (La.5/4/01), -82 .
State v. Enclade 858 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
See State v. Dumas, 00-862, p. 4 (La.5/4/01), .
State v. Sims 851 So. 2d 1039 La. 2003
State v. Dumas, 00-0862, pp. 2-3 (La.5/04/01), .
State v. Adams 836 So. 2d 9 La. 2003
Those same circumstances, particularly respondent's furtive gesture to her waistband, also provided an objectively reasonable basis for the officers to conduct a self-protective search for weapons on grounds that "`a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.'" State v. Dumas, 00-0862, p. 3 (La.5/4/01), (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 27 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Lawrence 817 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Dumas, 2000-0862, pp. 2-3 (La.5/4/01), -82 .
Goins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 800 So. 2d 783 La. 2001
State v. Dumas, 00-0862, p. 2 (La.5/4/01), .
Scott v. American Tobacco Co. 795 So. 2d 1176 La. 2001
See e.g., State v. Dumas, XXXX-XXXX (La.5/4/2001)