Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Temple, 854 So. 2d 856.

54 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Damien J. Debose La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
State Of Louisiana v. April Marie Ford La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Malik K. Lawson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
State of Louisiana v. Kevin Dupart La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
App. 4 Cir. 3/26/14), : In making a brief investigatory stop on less than probable cause to arrest, the police “‘must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’ ” State v. Temple, 02-1895, pp. 4-5 (La.9/9/03), -860.
State v. Jackson 257 So. 3d 179 La. 2018
9/9/03), , 859 ; State v. Sims , 02-2208 (La.
State v. Loicana 254 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. McMasters 251 So. 3d 1139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Barnes 203 So. 3d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
9/9/03), -861 , However, a location’s characteristics and an individual’s nervous, evasive behavior are articulable facts upon which a police officer may legitimately rely in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation and are, therefore, relevant in the determination
State v. Lewis 187 So. 3d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
art. 215.1; State v. Temple, 02-1895 (La.9/9/03), ; see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. King 184 So. 3d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Temple, 2002-1895, p. 4 (La.9/9/03), .
State v. Moultrie 182 So. 3d 1017 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Temple, 02-1895 (La.9/9/03), -60 .
State v. Boyles 157 So. 3d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Temple, 2002-1895 (La.9/9/03), .
State v. Gayton 156 So. 3d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 5 (La.9/9/03); .
State ex rel. J.W. 157 So. 3d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 5/28/14), (quoting State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 4 (La.9/9/03), -60 ).
State v. Greenberry 141 So. 3d 925 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
It is clear that, in making a stop, a police officer “must have a particularized and objective basis for | ¡¡suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 4 (La.9/9/03), -60 (internal citations omitted).
State v. Everett 156 So. 3d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
In making a brief investigatory stop on less than probable cause to arrest, the police “ ‘must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’ ” State v. Temple, 02-1895, pp. 4-5 (La.9/9/03), -860 .
State v. McClendon 133 So. 3d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 5 (La.9/9/03), .
State v. Caliste 131 So. 3d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Temple, 02-1895 (La.9/9/03), .
State v. Ulmer 116 So. 3d 1004 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Temple, 02-1895 (La.9/9/08), ; see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Cureaux 116 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Temple, 2002-1895 (La.9/9/03), .
State of Louisiana v. Ricky J. Charpentier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 4 (La.9/9/03), State v. Collins, 04-751, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Charpentier 86 So. 3d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 4 (La.9/9/03), ; State v. Collins, 04-751, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Walls 86 So. 3d 71 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Temple, 2002-1895 (La.9/09/03), .
State v. Simpson 77 So. 3d 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The second tier of contact, a Terry or investigatory stop, was discussed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Temple, 2002-1895 (La.9/9/03), : Although La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Williams 74 So. 3d 1208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
art. 215.1; State v. Temple, 02-1895 (La.9/9/03), ; see also Terry, supra.
State v. Fortune 72 So. 3d 1000 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Temple, 2002-1895 (La.09/09/03), .
State v. Marshall 70 So. 3d 1106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Temple, 2002-1895 (La.9/9/03), .
State v. Sander 69 So. 3d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 5 (La.9/9/03), .
State v. Thompson 58 So. 3d 994 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
1758, 1763 , 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984)), reviewing courts “must look at the ‘totality of the circumstances’ of each ease,” a process which “allows officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that ‘might well elude an untrained person.’ ” State v. Temple, 2002-1895 (La.9/9/03), (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 , 122 S.Ct.
State v. Welch 59 So. 3d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
-860 , the Court set forth the standard for determining whether ah officer can lawfully detain a defendant: Although La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Handy 52 So. 3d 1012 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
“This level of suspicion, however, need not rise to the probable cause required for a lawful arrest.” State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 4 (La.9/9/03), .
State v. Patterson 38 So. 3d 1131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
art. 215.1; State v. Temple, 02-1895, pp. 4-5 (La.9/9/03), -60 .
State v. McMillan 30 So. 3d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
See also State v. Temple, 02-1895 (La.9/9/03), (holding that reasonable suspicion for a stop was more than “looking nervous” and sitting on a porch in a “high crime area.”); State v. Fearheiley, 08-0307 (La.4/18/08), (holding that a police officer’s observation of a apparent brief hand-to-hand transaction inside a vehicle gave rise to reaso
Distinguished State of Louisiana v. Davy C. Harris La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
9/9/03), the supreme court noted that citizens are presumed law abiding, even those in high crime areas.
Distinguished State v. Harris 21 So. 3d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
However, in State v. Temple, 02-1895 (La.9/9/03), , the supreme court noted that citizens are presumed law abiding, even those in high crime areas.
State v. Thomas 8 So. 3d 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
1758, 1763 , 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984)), reviewing courts “must look at the ‘totality of the circumstances’ of each case,” a process which “allows officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that ‘might well elude an untrained person.’ ” State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 5 (La.9/9/03), (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 , 122 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Marty Palmer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
9/9/03) ; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, (1968); (La.
State v. Palmer 1 So. 3d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
See State v. Temple, 02-1895 (La.9/9/03), ; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Lazard 2 So. 3d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
In State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 5 (La.9/9/03), , the Court expounded on the analysis of the totality of the circumstances: In reviewing the totality of circumstances, the reputation of an area is an articulable fact upon which a police officer may legitimately rely and is therefore relevant in the determination of reasonable suspicion.
State v. Walker 996 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 4 (La.9/9/03), ; State v. Melancon, 03-514, p. 5 (La.App.
State v. Ayche 978 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Compare, State v. Temple, 02-1895 (La.9/9/03), (Court held that reasonable suspicion for a stop was more than "looking nervous" and sitting on a porch in a "high crime area.").
State v. Boyer 967 So. 2d 458 La. 2007
1868, 1880 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 4 (La.9/9/03), ; State v. Sims, 02-2208, pp. 4-5 (La.6/27/03), .
State v. Hunter 949 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
[by] actual restraint of the person.” In State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 9 (La.9/9/03), , the supreme court explained that: [P]olice officers may make warrantless arrests if probable cause exists, that is, “when the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to justify a man of ordinary caution in believing that the pe
State of Louisiana v. Eric L. Hunter La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
9/9/03), the supreme court explained that: [P]olice officers may make warrantless arrests if probable cause exists, that is, “when the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to justify a man of ordinary cau
State v. Kelly 946 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
State v. Temple, XXXX-XXXX, p. 6 (La.9/9/03), ; State v. Hughes, 99-2554 (La.App.
State v. Clay 930 So. 2d 1028 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 4 (La.9/9/03), ; State v. Collins, 04-751, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Burciaga 924 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 4 (La.9/9/03), ; State v. Collins, 04-751, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Hollimon 900 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
She reasoned that this case fell within State v. Temple, 02-1895 (La.9/9/03), , and found the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop.
State of Louisiana v. Danny Ray Sherman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
9/9/03), the supreme court stated: Although La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Sherman 896 So. 2d 1194 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
*1203 In State v. Temple, 02-1895, p. 4 (La.9/9/03), , the supreme court stated: Although La.C.Cr.P.