Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bickham, 404 So. 2d 929.

143 citing documents.

State v. Barber 749 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Patrick, supra ; State v. Cotton, supra .
State v. Greenwell 746 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Patrick, supra; State v. Cotton, supra.
State v. Nogess 729 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Patrick 721 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Cotton, supra .
State v. Campbell 715 So. 2d 488 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Jarvis 710 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Basile 700 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. McBarry 699 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Parker 696 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. Purvis 684 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
3 Cir.1987), reasonable cause for a Terry stop is less than probable cause, "but the officer must have articulable knowledge of particular facts, which in conjunction with reasonable inferences drawn therefrom is subject to provide reasonable grounds of past, present or future criminal activity."
State v. Jackson 684 So. 2d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Cyriak 684 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Hebert 676 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
3 Cir.1987), [ ], reasonable cause for a "Terry stop" is less than probable cause, but the officer must have "articulable knowledge" of particular facts, which in conjunction with reasonable inferences drawn therefrom is sufficient to provide reasonable grounds of past, present or future criminal activity.
State v. Moore 663 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
1877 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972); (La.
State v. McBroom 655 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Hunter 654 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Caine 652 So. 2d 611 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Grubbs 644 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Carr 635 So. 2d 1334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
4th Cir.1989); We find that Celius has not shown that the identification procedure was suggestive.
State v. Solomon 634 So. 2d 1330 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Burton 640 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Daniels 631 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Jeffers 623 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
State v. Johnson 619 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
1877 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972); (La.App.
State v. Van Buren 615 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Love 611 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
State v. Corry 610 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
State v. Henderson 607 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
State v. Head 598 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
the Louisiana Supreme Court noted: Knowledge that an offense has been committed is often a critical element in establishing reasonable cause.
State v. Kelly 595 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
State v. Thomas 589 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Payne 586 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: Mental incapacity to proceed exists when, as a result of mental disease or defect, a defendant lacks the capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense.
State v. Smith 577 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Patterson 572 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Valentine 570 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Cryer 564 So. 2d 1328 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. *1330 Bickham, (La.App.
State v. Gurley 565 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Swaingan 563 So. 2d 1204 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
that: Law enforcement officers may make an investigatory stop when it is reasonable to believe that a suspect has engaged in criminal activity.
State v. West 559 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s unsubstantiated request for the appointment of a sanity commission.
State v. Brown 558 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Woolridge 555 So. 2d 1385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: “Such identification procedures are generally permitted when the accused is apprehended within a short time after the offense and is returned to the scene of the crime for an on-the-spot identification.
State v. Holmes 550 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Anderson 547 So. 2d 3 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Chavis 542 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Washington 540 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Washington 540 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Valery 532 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); (La.
State v. Loera 530 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Hodges 526 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Cabler 526 So. 2d 1177 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988