Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Broussard, 816 So. 2d 1284.

39 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Michael Glen Robinson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
5/24/02), the court upheld a frisk of the suspect’s person where: (1) the officers observed a third person who had just sold a cocaine rock to an undercover officer get into the suspect’s vehicle for only a brief moment, whereupon the suspect departed; (2) upon the police stopping him with a box-in maneuver, the suspect threw
State v. Fields 151 So. 3d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), , the frisking officer testified that, based on his many years of experience in narcotics enforcement, he knew “from the feel of the lumps and the crinkle of plastic in respondent’s pocket, that he had discovered rocks of cocaine and that he would place respondent under arrest even before he pulled the packet out of r
State v. Beal 142 So. 3d 124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), .
State v. McClendon 133 So. 3d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Broussard, 00-3230, pp. 5-6 (La.5/24/02), (per curiam)
State v. Barabin 124 So. 3d 1121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
at 1470 (“The imposition of correctly applied handcuffs - on Mena, who was already being lawfully detained during a search of the house, was undoubtedly a separate intrusion in addition to detention in the converted garage.”); State v. Broussard, 00-3230, p. 4 (La.5/24/02), (“ ‘There is no question that the use of handcuffs, being one of the most recognizable indicia of a traditional arrest, substantially aggravates the intrusiveness of a putative Terry stop.’”)(quoting United States v. Acosta-C
State ex rel. T.H. 120 So. 3d 690 La. 2013
State v. Broussard, 00-3230, pp. 3-4 (La.5/24/02), (“[Bjrevity alone does not always distinguish investigatory stops from arrests, as the former may be accompanied by arrest-like features, e.g. use of drawn weapons and handcuffs, which may, but do not invariably, render the seizure a de facto arrest.”) (citations omitted).
State v. Carter 96 So. 3d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), .
State v. Thompson 93 So. 3d 553 La. 2012
at 1470 (“The imposition of correctly applied handcuffs on Mena, who was already being lawfully detained during a search of the house, was undoubtedly a separate intrusion in addition to detention in the converted garage.”); State v. Broussard, 00-3230, p. 4 (La.5/24/02), (“ ‘There is no' question- that the use of handcuffs, being one of the most recognizable indicia of a traditional arrest, substantially aggravates the intrusiveness of a putative Terry stop.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Acosta
State of Louisiana v. Ricky J. Charpentier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
at 1470 (“The imposition of correctly applied handcuffs on Mena, who was already being lawfully detained during a search of the house, was undoubtedly a separate intrusion in addition to detention in the converted garage.”); State v. Broussard, 00-3230, p. 4 (La.5/24/02), (“„There is no question that the use of handcuffs, being one of the most recognizable indicia of a traditional arrest, substantially aggravates the intrusiveness of a putative Terry stop.‟” (quoting United States v. Acosta-Colo
State v. Charpentier 86 So. 3d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
at 1470 (“The imposition of correctly applied handcuffs on Mena, who was already being lawfully detained during a search of the house, was undoubtedly a separate intrusion in addition to detention in the converted garage.”); State v. Broussard, 00-3230, p. 4 (La.5/24/02), (“ ‘There is no question that the use of handcuffs, being one of the most recognizable indicia of a traditional arrest, substantially aggravates the intrusiveness of a putative Terry stop.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Acosta-C
State v. Molette 79 So. 3d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
675, 684 , 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985) (finding the use of a drawn weapon was permissible in an investigatory stop when the suspects had been reported to be armed and dangerous); State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), (investigatory stops may be accompanied by features normally associated with an arrest, e.g., use of drawn weapons and handcuffs).
State v. Dickerson 65 So. 3d 172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See also State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), -1287 .
State v. Welch 59 So. 3d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
at 1470 (“The imposition of correctly applied handcuffs on Mena, who was already being lawfully detained during a search of the house, was undoubtedly a separate intrusion in addition to detention in the converted garage.”); State v. Broussard, 00-3230, p. 4 (La.5/24/02), (“ ‘There is no question that the use of handcuffs, being one of the most recognizable indicia of a traditional arrest, substantially aggravates the intrusiveness of a putative Terry stop.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Acosta-C
State v. Bazley 60 So. 3d 7 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
However, the use of actual restraint does not, alone, transform a street encounter between the police and a citizen into an arrest because an investigatory stop necessarily “involves an element of force or duress, temporary restraint of a person’s freedom to walk away.” State v. Broussard, 00-3230, p. 3 (La.5/24/02), (per curiam).
State v. Handy 52 So. 3d 1012 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Temple, 854 So.2d at 862 (quoting State v. Broussard, 00-3230, pp. 7-8 (La.5/24/02), ).
State v. Mitchell 52 So. 3d 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See also State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), -1287 .
State v. Davis 31 So. 3d 513 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See, e.g., State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), ; State v. Taylor, 06-558 (La.App.
State v. Guillory 21 So. 3d 945 La. 2009
State of Louisiana v. Alfonzo Jermaine Johnlouis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
However, the use of actual restraint does not, alone, transform a street encounter between the police and a citizen into an arrest because an investigatory stop necessarily “involves an element of force or duress, temporary restraint of a person’s freedom to walk away.” State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), per curiam, (citation omitted).
State v. Johnlouis 22 So. 3d 1150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
However, the use of actual restraint does not, alone, transform a street encounter between the police and a citizen into an arrest because an investigatory stop necessarily “involves an element of force or duress, temporary restraint of a person’s freedom to walk away.” State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), , per curiam, (citation omitted).
State v. Lazard 2 So. 3d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
at 1470 (“The imposition of correctly applied handcuffs on Mena, who was already being lawfully detained during a search of the house, was undoubtedly a separate intrusion in addition to detention in the converted garage.”); State v. Broussard, 00-3230, p. 4 (La.5/24/02), (“ ‘There is no question that the use of handcuffs, being one of the most recognizable indicia of a traditional arrest, substantially aggravates the intrusiveness of a putative Terry stop.’ ’’)(quoting United States v. Acosta-C
State v. Morton 993 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
See also State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), -1287 .
State v. Honeycutt 987 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
07-1417 (La.1/7/08), (citing State v. Broussard, 00-3230, p. 2 (La.5/24/02), ).
State v. Anthony 971 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), .
State v. Taylor 966 So. 2d 631 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), -1289 .
State v. Parnell 960 So. 2d 1091 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Broussard, 00-3230, p. 3 (La.5/24/02), .
State v. Porche 943 So. 2d 335 La. 2006
at 1470 ("The imposition of correctly applied handcuffs on Mena, who was already being lawfully detained during a search of the house, was undoubtedly a separate intrusion in addition to detention in the converted garage."); State v. Broussard, 00-3230, p. 4 (La.5/24/02), ("`There is no question that the use of handcuffs, being one of the most recognizable indicia of a traditional arrest, substantially aggravates the intrusiveness of a putative Terry stop.'")(quoting United States v. Acosta-Colo
State v. Smith 947 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), , per curiam, (citation omitted).
State v. Sam 905 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
In State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the search and seizure of cocaine was justified under the "plain feel" doctrine of Minnesota v. Dickerson.
State v. Martinez 874 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
2130, 2137 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 , (1993); State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), .
State v. Bradley 867 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), , the Supreme Court was faced with a similar situation and applied the “plain feel” exception to the warrant requirement recognized in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 377 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Melancon 860 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
[17] 00-3230, pp. 3-4 (La.5/24/02), , [18] See, State v. Lopez, 00-0562, p. 5 (La.10/30/00), .
State v. Dowell 857 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
4 Cir. 10/4/00) , , rev’d on other grounds, 2000-3230 (La.5/24/02), .
State v. Enclade 858 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Broussard, 00-3230, pp. 3-4 (La.5/24/02), ("Brevity alone does not always distinguish investigatory stops from arrests, as the former may be accompanied by arrest-like features, e.g., use of drawn weapons and handcuffs, which may, but do not invariably, render the seizure a de facto arrest.") (citing United States v. Acosta-Colon, 157 F.3d 9, 18-19 (1st
State v. Temple 854 So. 2d 856 La. 2003
In State v. Broussard, 00-3230, (La.5/24/02), , this Court applied the "plain feel" exception to the warrant requirement recognized in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 377 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Adams 836 So. 2d 9 La. 2003
State v. Broussard, 00-3230 pp. 3-4 (La.5/24/02), ("[B]revity alone does not always distinguish investigatory stops from arrests, as the former may be accompanied by arrest-like features, e.g., use of drawn weapons and handcuffs, which may, but do not invariably, render the seizure a de facto arrest.") (citing United States v. Acosta-Colon, 157 F.3d 9, 18-19 (1
State v. Cojoe 828 So. 2d 1101 La. 2002
See State v. Broussard, 00-3230 pp. 3-4 (La.5/24/02), ("[B]revity alone does not always distinguish investigatory stops from arrests, as the former may be accompanied by arrest-like features, e.g., use of drawn weapons and handcuffs, which may, but do not invariably, render the seizure a de facto arrest.") (citations omitted).
State v. Sylvester 826 So. 2d 1106 La. 2002
Cf. State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), (boxing in defendant's vehicle with patrol units stationed in front and in back of his car constituted a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes).
State v. Young 820 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
*1186 In State v. Broussard, 00-3230 (La.5/24/02), , the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed this Court’s finding of no probable cause to arrest based on the conclusion that there was reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop.