Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Sherman, 931 So. 2d 286.

43 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Darnell T. McKey La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Claiborne S. Gipson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
4/4/06), citing Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 93 S. Ct. 2000, 36 L. Ed. 2d 900 (1973); and Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 23 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1969).
State of Louisiana v. Damien J. Debose La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
4/4/06), (explaining that “[i]t is well established that a search incident to a lawful custodial arrest is a limited exception to the constitutional prohibition of warrantless searches” (first citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224, 94 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Tristen J. Lamons La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Larry Charles Hargrove La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
4/4/06), 10 (citing Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 93 S.Ct.
State Of Louisiana v. Antonio Gibson La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Reginald Taral Warren La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
4/4/06), the supreme court specifically stated “we find the subjective intent of the officers does not determine the reasonableness of a warrantless search incidental to arrest, where the officer did not have an intent to arrest for the offense for which probable cause objectively existed.” In Sherman, law enforce
State v. Warren 239 So. 3d 960 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
4/4/06), , 296, the supreme court specifically stated "we find the subjective intent of the officers does not determine the reasonableness of a warrantless search incidental to arrest, where the officer did not have an intent to arrest for the offense for which probable cause objectively existed."
State ex rel. R.M. 209 So. 3d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
4/4/06); (citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224 , 94 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Zachariah Lastrapes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
4/4/06), ” For a traffic stop to be justified at its inception, an officer must have an objectively reasonable suspicion that some sort of illegal activity occurred or is about to occur before stopping the vehicle.
State v. Bell 169 So. 3d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Id.; State v. Sherman, 05-0779 (La.4/4/06), .
State v. Gayton 156 So. 3d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Sherman, 05-0779, p. 8 (La.4/4/06); (citing Robinson, 414 U.S. at 224 , 94 S.Ct.
State v. Hayes 153 So. 3d 421 La. 2014
See, State v. Butler, 12-2359, p. 5 (La.5/17/13), (“In light of [State v.Sherman, 05-0779, p. 11 (La.4/4/06), ], we nevertheless agree with the state that purely as an objective matter, the officers ultimately did nothing more than what the law entitled them to do by detaining defendant after observing him commit a 12misdemeanor offense in their presence and searching him for weapons and evidence, without regard to wheth
State v. Marshall 134 So. 3d 1159 La. 2014
See State v. Sherman, 05-0779, pp. 17-18 (La.4/4/06), (“Where the police have probable cause to arrest, and conduct a search of that person incident to arrest, the fruits of that search may not be suppressed merely because the police did not intend to arrest the suspect for the offense for which probable cause existed.”).
State v. Lewis 121 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
If an arrest is justified before the search, it is not unreasonable for the search to be made before instead of after the arrest.” State v. Sherman, 05-0779, pp. 8-9 (La.4/4/06), .
State v. Butler 117 So. 3d 87 La. 2013
The state relies on this Court’s decision in State v. Sherman, 05-0779, p. 11 (La.4/4/06), , which adopted the rule, under somewhat similar circumstances, that “if probable cause to arrest plus the making of a custodial arrest justifies a search of the person, then a search should be allowed when there is probable cause to arrest but no arrest.” Sherman thus upheld a search conducted by experienced nar
State v. Foster 108 So. 3d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Moreover, police may request some | ^identification from the individual they are conversing with without turning the encounter into a forcible detention, “unless the request is accompanied by an unmistakable show of authority indicating to the person that he or she is not free to leave.” Martin , 11-0082, pp. 7-8, 79 So.3d at 956 , quoting State v. Sherman, 05-0779, p. 7 (La.4/4/06), .
State v. Matthews 100 So. 3d 890 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
2382, 2388 , 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991); See also, State v. Sherman, 2005-0779, p. 7 (La.4/4/06), .
Followed State v. Banks 95 So. 3d 1081 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See also State v. Sherman, 05-0779 (La.4/4/09), .
State v. Green 79 So. 3d 1013 La. 2012
f a misdemeanor offense in his presence, and we need not decide here whether the initial stop alone could be fairly characterized as an arrest for Fourth Amendment purposes because it was based on probable cause, entitling the officer to conduct an immediate search of defendant as an incident thereto, see United States v. Pratt, 355 F.3d 1119 (8th Cir.2004); State v. Sherman, 05-0779 (La.4/4/06), , although the officer ultimately opted to issue him a citation for violating the local ordinance on
State v. Baldwin 79 So. 3d 1258 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Sherman, 2005-0779 (La.4/4/06), , citing Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 63 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Roberson 81 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
2556, 2564 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); State v. Shennan, 2005-0779 (La.4/4/06), .
State v. Martin 79 So. 3d 951 La. 2011
art. 215.1(A) (reasonable suspicion needed for temporary investigatory stop); and State v. Sherman, 2005-0779, p. 7 (La.4/4/06); (mere communication implicates no Fourth Amendment concerns).
State of Louisiana v. Terrance A. Martin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Sherman, 05-0779, p. 7 (La.04/04/06)
State of Louisiana v. George Earl White, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. SURTAIN 31 So. 3d 1037 La. 2010
1769, 1774 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); State v. Sherman, 2005-0779 p. 14 (La.4/4/06), .
State v. Herrera 23 So. 3d 896 La. 2009
State v. Sherman, 05-0779, p. 7 (La.04/04/06), .
State v. Grimes 16 So. 3d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Turner 13 So. 3d 695 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
"It is well established searches incident to arrest conducted immediately before formal arrest are valid if probable cause to arrest existed prior to the search.” State v. Sherman, 05-0779, p. 9 (La.4/4/06), .
State v. Rector 997 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
4/4/06), , the supreme court discussed Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 , 116 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Clayton W. Rector La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
4/4/06), the supreme court discussed Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct.
State v. Johnson 996 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
[15] State v. Sherman, 05-0779 (La.4/4/06), .
State v. Chatman 981 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
2556 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); State v. Sherman, XXXX-XXXX (La.04/04/06), .
State v. Stoutes 980 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
[13] Defendant's reliance upon State v. Sherman, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/4/06), , is particularly misplaced.
State v. Bellow 982 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
State v. Sherman, 05-0779, pp. 17-18 (La.4/4/06), .
State v. Anthony 971 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
In addition, the State asserts that, even if the police had no legal right to stop the defendants based on the tip, they had the right to perform an investigatory stop because of an expired license tag, citing State v. Sherman, 05-779 (La.4/4/06), .
State v. Simmons 968 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
See, State v. Sherman, 05-779 (La.4/4/06), .
Lindsey v. Caddo Parish School Bd. 954 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
See, for example, State v. Jackson, XXXX-XXXX (La.7/6/00), ; State v. Kelley, XXXX-XXXX (La.7/10/06), ; and State v. Sherman, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/4/06), .
State v. Hunter 949 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
| In State v. Sherman, 05-0779, p. 8 (La.4/4/06), (citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224 , 94 S.Ct.
State of Louisiana v. Eric L. Hunter La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
4/4/06), (citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224, 94 S.Ct.
State v. Chauvin 945 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
4/4/06), , to support its claim that Sergeant Huth had the authority to approach and search the defendant, because there was probable cause to arrest the defendant for disturbing the peace.
State v. Leonard 945 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
See also State v. Sherman, 05-0779 (La.4/4/06), , in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held: Where the police have probable cause to effect a lawful custodial arrest, and conduct a search of that person incident to arrest, the fruits of that search may not be suppressed merely because the police did not intend to arrest the suspect for the offense for which pr
State v. Roche 928 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
[14] 05-0779 (La.4/4/06), , 2006 WL 860652 .