Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Elliott, 35 So. 3d 247.

14 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Arial Valencia-Lacayo La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana Versus Candido Beltran Abrego La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
State of Louisiana Versus Jakorey Williams La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Michael Glen Robinson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
In re State 240 So. 3d 310 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2018
3/16/10), , cited by the State and the juvenile in their briefs, the supreme court found that information conveyed to a 9-1-1 dispatcher from the occupants of a vehicle following the defendant's car expressly described traffic violations as they occurred, providing the requisite indicia of reliability to justify a stop based on
State v. Gates 145 So. 3d 288 La. 2014
providing information about a crime as it was happening.” State v. Elliott, 2009-1727, p. 7 (La.3/16/10); .
State v. Carter 130 So. 3d 308 La. 2013
and the ability of the police to trace the identity of anonymous telephone informants may be a factor which lends reliability to what, years earlier, might have been considered unreliable anonymous tips.”); see also State v. Elliott, 09-1727, p. 7 (La.3/16/10), (reliability of 911 call demonstrated by willingness of the caller to “hold[ ] herself accountable for the information she provided by identifying herself, if not by name, then by the cellular phone from which she was calling.”) (citing J
State v. Caliste 131 So. 3d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See also State v. Elliott, 09-1727, p. 5 (La.3/16/10), (citations omitted) (the determination of whether probable cause exists for an arrest or reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop is a purely objective inquiry that takes into account all of the information known collectively to the law enforcement personnel involved in the investigation).
State v. Butler 101 So. 3d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The determination of whether probable cause for an arrest existed at the time of the pat-down is a “purely objective” determination that takes into account “all of the information known collectively to the law enforcement personnel involved in the investigation.” State v. Elliott, 2009-1727 (La.3/16/10) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); (whether probable cause existed at the time of the arrest must be determined without regard to the result of the subsequent search).
State v. Golden 95 So. 3d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The determination of whether reasonable suspicion exists for an investigatory stop is a purely *529 objective inquiry that takes into account “all of the information known collectively to the law enforcement personnel involved in the investigation.” State v. Elliott, 2009-1727, p. 5 (La.3/16/10), (citation omitted).
State of Louisiana v. Brandon Dale Allen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
3/16/10), the supreme court discussed the legality of a traffic stop when the officer had not seen the traffic offenses but was told by witnesses of the offenses.
State v. Allen 79 So. 3d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In State v. Elliott, 09-1727 (La.3/16/10), , the supreme court discussed the legality of a traffic stop when the officer had not seen the traffic offenses but was told by witnesses of the offenses.
State v. Mulder 76 So. 3d 1241 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The determination of whether probable cause for an arrest existed at the time of the pat-down is a “purely objective” determination that takes into account “all of the information known collectively to the law enforcement personnel involved in the investigation.” State v. Elliott, 2009-1727 (La.3/16/2010), (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); (whether probable cause existed at the time of the arrest must be determined without regard to the result of the subsequent search).
State v. STAPA 46 So. 3d 264 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
See State v. Elliott, 09-1727 (La.03/16/10), .