DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Wade, 390 So. 2d 1309.

47 citing documents.

  • State Of Louisiana v. Jaleel Green La. 2024
  • State of Louisiana v. Kevin Dupart La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
    App. 4 Cir. 8/23/95), (“Once Officer Heck retrieved the weapon, he had probable cause to arrest [defendant] for carrying a concealed weapon.”); (La.
  • State v. Bradstreet 170 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
  • State v. Carter 131 So. 3d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State ex rel. T.H. 106 So. 3d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    “[A] police officer has the right to conduct a limited “frisk” for weapons after making the investigatory stop when he has drawn a specific reasonable inference from facts and experience that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual.”
  • State of Louisiana v. Thomas Eaglin AKA Eaglin Thomas AKA Thomas H. Eaglin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Morgan 59 So. 3d 403 La. 2011
    Belton, 441 So.2d at 1198 ( ).
  • State v. Thomas 8 So. 3d 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Sims, 02-2208, p. 11 (La.6/27/03)
  • State v. Walker 953 So. 2d 786 La. 2007
    Although flight, nervousness, or a startled look at the sight of a police officer is, by itself, insufficient to justify an investigatory stop, State v. Chopin, supra ; this type of conduct may be highly suspicious and, therefore, may be one of the factors leading to a finding of reasonable cause
  • State v. Sims 851 So. 2d 1039 La. 2003
  • State v. Broussard 769 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • State v. Brumfield 745 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • State v. Branch 714 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Sanders 717 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Huntley 708 So. 2d 1048 La. 1998
    2158 , 80 L.Ed.2d 543 (1984); and we believe that the coalescence of circumstances in this case gave the officers a particularized and objective basis for seizing the three men "to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information."
  • State v. Lewis 728 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    The Louisiana Supreme Court explained the justification for a cert.
  • State v. Purvis 684 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    The Louisiana Supreme Court explained the justification for a cert.
  • State v. Bruser 661 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Solomon 634 So. 2d 1330 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Edwards 630 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
  • State v. Vallee 629 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Ashbury 612 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
    ” After reviewing the totality of circumstances in Ashbury’s stop and search, we cannot say that the trial judge erred in rejecting the motion to suppress.
  • State v. Perkins 609 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
    Although flight, nervousness, or a startled look at the sight of a police officer is, by itself, insufficient to justify an investigatory stop, State v. Chopin, supra; this type of conduct may be highly suspicious and, therefore, may be one of the factors leading to a finding of reasonable cause
  • State v. Williams 588 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Brown 558 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    At the trial court level, cert.
  • State v. Tolliver 556 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
  • State v. Lee 520 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Griffin 520 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Garrett 480 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Lee 485 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
  • State v. Anderson 478 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Rodriguez 476 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Krempel 471 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
  • State v. Smith 466 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Walters 464 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    -1313 (La.1980), appears the following: this Court pointed out that merely because there are reasonable grounds to justify a lawful investigatory stop, such grounds do not automatically justify a frisk for weapons.
  • State v. Schuler 457 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Alexander 450 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Although flight, nervousness, or a startled look at the sight of a police officer is, by itself, insufficient to justify an investigatory stop, State v. Chopin, supra; this type of conduct may be highly suspicious and, therefore, may be one of the factors leading to a finding of reasonable cause, ” Applying the foregoing principles to the facts of the instant case, we find that Officer Guidry had sufficient knowledge of facts and circumstances to justify an investigatory stop.
  • State v. Jones 450 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Belton 441 So. 2d 1195 La. 1983
    Although flight, nervousness, or a startled look at the sight of a police officer is, by itself, insufficient to justify an investigatory stop, State v. Chopin, supra ; this type of conduct may be highly suspicious and, therefore, may be one of the factors leading to a finding of reasonable cause
  • State v. Denis 441 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Husband 437 So. 2d 269 La. 1983
  • State v. Williams 421 So. 2d 874 La. 1982
  • State v. Cobb 419 So. 2d 1237 La. 1982
  • State v. Williams 416 So. 2d 91 La. 1982
  • State v. Melton 412 So. 2d 1065 La. 1982
    However, Keller involved a
  • State v. Crosby 403 So. 2d 1217 La. 1981
    ( ) The facts in Jergnigan are stronger in favor of the state than they are in the instant case.
  • State v. Keller 403 So. 2d 693 La. 1981