Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Dobard, 824 So. 2d 1127.

25 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Thomas Riles La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
In State v. Dobard, this court stated, “It is settled that ‘law enforcement officers’ do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen ....” 01-2629, p. 8 (La.6/21/02), (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 498, 103 S.Ct.
State v. Cavalier 171 So. 3d 1117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Thus, “while the police may briefly detain and interrogate an individual in a public place, they may make an investigatory stop only if it is based upon a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the individual has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in criminal activity.” State v. Dobard, 2001-2629, p. 3 (La.6/21/02), -30 .
State v. Williams 128 So. 3d 359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Dobard, 01-2629 (La.6/21/02), .
State v. Alberti 128 So. 3d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Within the first tier, officers have “the right to engage anyone in conversation, even without reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed a ei'ime.” State v. Dobard, 01-2629 (La.6/21/02), .
State v. Wilson 119 So. 3d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Thus, “while the police may briefly detain and interrogate an individual in a public place, they may make an investigatory stop only if it is based upon a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the individual has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in criminal activity.” State v. Dobard, 01-2629, p. 3 (La.6/21/02), -30 .
State v. Ulmer 116 So. 3d 1004 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Dobard, 01-2629, p. 3 (La.6/21/02), (citation omitted).
State v. Reed 107 So. 3d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Police may make “an investigatory stop only if it is based upon a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the individual has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in criminal activity.” State v. Dobard, 01-2629, p. 2 (La.6/21/02), (emphasis added); see also La.Code Crim.
State v. Foster 108 So. 3d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Dobard, 01-2629, p. 3 (La.6/21/02), -30 .
State v. King 109 So. 3d 941 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Dobard, 2001-2629, p. 4 (La 6/21/02), .
State v. Butler 101 So. 3d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Thus, “the police may briefly detain and interrogate an individual in a public place, they may make an investigatory stop only if it is based upon a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the individual has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in criminal activity.” State v. Dobard, 01-2629, p. 2 (La.6/21/02), (emphasis added); see also La.Code Crim.
State v. Thompson 93 So. 3d 553 La. 2012
In State v. Dobard, 2001-2629, p. 3 (La.6/21/02); -1130 , this court held: The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 5 of the Louisiana Constitution protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures.
State v. Hamilton 36 So. 3d 209 La. 2010
State v. Dobard, 01-2629 (La.6/21/02), .
State v. Dowell 17 So. 3d 523 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
6/21/02), ; State v. Williams, 07-0700, p. 7 (La.App.
State v. Turner 13 So. 3d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
4 “The *702 police do not seize a person simply by identifying their presence and approaching an individual without taking any additional measures to assert their authority over the person that would not be expected from the encounter if it had occurred with an ordinary citizen.” State v. Dobard, 01-2629, p. 8 (La.6/21/02), .
State ex rel. J.S. 6 So. 3d 904 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
(an actual stop was not imminent where police parked their car ten feet away from where defendant was standing and approached him on foot) and Ryan, supra (an actual stop not imminent where police officer sprang from police unit and approached defendant who was suspiciously concealing object in one hand); see also State v. Dobard, 01-2629 (La.6/21/02), (the officer’s subjective intent to stop anyone in a bar was irrelevant because the defendant abandoned the drugs upon seeing the officers enter
State v. Bozeman 6 So. 3d 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Dobard, 2001-2629, p. 3 (La.6/21/02), .
State v. Seltzer 986 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Dobard, 2001-2629 (La.6/21/02), ().
State v. Duplessis 974 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960); State v. Dobard, 01-2629 (La.6/21/02), .
State v. Stephens 917 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960); State v. Dobard, 01-2629 (La.6/21/02), .
State v. Hollimon 900 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Dobard, 01-2629 (La.6/21/02), (citing La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Sykes 900 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
4 Cir. 2/13/02), (no actual imminent stop where the officers merely approached a group of men *161 which included the defendant, and the defendant walked away and threw something over a fence); see also State v. Dobard, 2001-2629 (La.6/21/02), (the officers' subjective intent to stop anyone in a bar was irrelevant because the defendant abandoned drugs upon seeing the officers enter the bar and identify themselves).
State v. Enclade 858 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
-711 (La.1993); State v. Dobard, 01-2629, p. 6 (La.6/21/02), .
State v. Holloway 847 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
opinion reaffirmed and reinstated on rehearing by State v. Dobard, 2001-2629 (La.6/21/02), .
State v. Parfait 831 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Dobard, 01-2629, p. 5 (La.6/21/02), .
State v. Handy 828 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
In State v. Dobard, 2001-2629 (La.6/21/02), , cited by the appellant on different grounds, the officers entered a bar with the purpose of conducting a "vice check" wherein they intended to ask all the patron if they had guns or contraband.