Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Duplechain, 772 So. 2d 90.

45 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Christopher L. Jones La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
10/30/00), State v. Smith, supra; State v. Lee, 46,742 (La.
State Of Louisiana v. Ray Allen Parker La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
10/ 30/ 00), - 93 ( per curiam); State v. Barnes, 2012- 0615 ( La.
State of Louisiana Versus Jeremy Simmons La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
10/30/00), -93 (per curiam).
State Of Louisiana v. Michael Boeh La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
10/ 30/ 00), - 93 ( per curiam); State v. Barnes, 2012- 0615 ( La.
State Of Louisiana v. J Ay-quan Carter La. 2021
10/30/00), -93 (per curiam).
State of Louisiana v. James J. Flournoy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Flournoy 209 So. 3d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Monroe 152 So. 3d 1011 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); State v. Lopez, 00-0562 (La.10/30/00)
State v. Smith 152 So. 3d 218 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Lee, 46,742 (La.App.2d Cir.12/14/11), ; State v. Lopez, 2000-0562 (La.10/30/00), .
State of Louisiana v. Jean-Luc Arisme La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
10/30/00), wherein the supreme court found that the marijuana seized in Lopez‟s car should not be suppressed.
State v. Arisme 123 So. 3d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In brief, Defendant futilely attempts to distinguish the supreme court’s decision in State v. Lopez, 00-562 (La.10/30/00), , wherein the supreme court found that the marijuana seized in Lopez’s car should not be suppressed.
State v. Cooks 108 So. 3d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Lopez, 00-562 (La.10/30/00), ; State v. Preston, 04-269 (La.App.
State v. $144,320.00 Tina Beers 105 So. 3d 694 La. 2012
See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 00-0562, p. 4 (La.10/30/00), (citing United States v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102, 1106-07 (5th Cir.1993)); State v. Cowan, 99-2888, p. 1 (La.6/16/00), ; State v. Gant, 93-2895 (La.5/20/94), .
State v. Meyers 100 So. 3d 938 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See, State v. Lopez, 2000-0562, pp. 3-4 (La.10/30/00), .
State v. Burney 92 So. 3d 1184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Lopez, 00-0562 (La.10/30/00), ; State v. Lee, supra.
State v. Chinn 94 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Lopez, 00-0562 (La.10/30/00), (per curiam); Wolff, 09-508, 30 So.3d at 902 ; and Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 , 116 S.Ct.
State v. Lee 79 So. 3d 1278 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Lopez, 00-0562 (La.10/30/00), ; State v. Lawrence, supra; State v. Khalfani, supra.
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS PRESTON KINCHEN AKA STEVEN HALL AKA STEVEN WEBB La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
10/30/00), : The arrival of a drug-detection dog on the scene within minutes of the stop afforded the officer the opportunity to “pursue[ ] a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel [his] suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.” United
State v. Kinchen 71 So. 3d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The Louisiana Supreme Court stated in State v. Lopez, 00-562, p. 4 (La.10/30/00), , 93: The arrival of a drug-detection dog on the scene within minutes of the stop afforded the officer the opportunity to “pursue[ ] a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel [his] suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.” United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675
State v. Mitchell 52 So. 3d 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Lopez, 00-0562 (La.10/30/00), (per curiam); State v. Wolff, 30 So.3d at 902 .
State v. Bass 47 So. 3d 541 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
permits police to search the vehicle without more.” citing, Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940 , 116 S.Ct.
State v. Lawrence 32 So. 3d 329 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
47:511(A); State v. Lopez, 00-0562 (La.10/30/00), .
State v. Wolff 30 So. 3d 897 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
3 See State v. Lopez, 00-562, p. 3 (La.10/30/00), , and State v. Schnyder, 08-1199, pp. 8-9 (La.App.
State v. Stowe 25 So. 3d 945 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
47:511(A); State v. Lopez, 2000-0562 (La.10/30/00), .
State v. Schnyder 10 So. 3d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
In State v. Lopez, 00-0562 (La.10/30/00), , the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that the defendant’s [¡^speeding above the posted limit gave the officer an objective probable cause basis to pull over the vehicle for a traffic violation, without regard to subjective intent.
State v. Neville 986 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); State v. Lopez, XXXX-XXXX (La.10/30/00), ; (La.App.
State v. Loza 973 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
10/30/00), , 92 (per curiam).
State of Louisiana v. Sean A. Strange La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Regarding Trooper Dupuis’ behavior after the stop, the court stated: [T]he [appellate] court correctly found that “once the stop was made, everything that occurred after that was appropriate.” Nothing precluded Trooper Dupuis from engaging the defendants in conversation, State v. Lopez, 00-0562 (La.10/30/00), and the officer did not need any degree of reasonable suspicion, as opposed to intuition or “hunch,” to ask for, and receive, Strange’s consent to search the car.
State v. Strange 940 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Nothing precluded Trooper Dupuis from engaging the defendants in conversation, State v. Lopez, 00-0562 (La.10/30/00), , and the officer did not need any degree of reasonable suspicion, as opposed to intuition or "hunch," to ask for, and receive, Strange's consent to search the car.
State v. Malone 912 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
See State v. Lopez, 00-0562 (La.10/30/00), .
State v. Dixon 911 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
In Dixon I, this court cited and compared United States v. Gonzalez, 328 F.3d 755 (5th Cir.2003), and State v. Lopez, 2000-0562 (La.10/30/00), , to the instant case.
State v. Francois 900 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Lopez, 00-562 (La.10/30/00), (per curiam) (citations omitted).
State v. Preston 880 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State v. Lopez, 00-0562, p. 3 (La.10/30/00), -93 .
State v. Strange 876 So. 2d 39 La. 2004
Nothing precluded Trooper Dupuis from engaging the defendants in conversation, State v. Lopez, 00-0562 (La.10/30/00), , and the officer did not need any degree of reasonable suspicion, as opposed to intuition or "hunch," to ask for, and receive, Strange's consent to search the car.
State v. Melancon 860 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
[17] 00-3230, pp. 3-4 (La.5/24/02), , [18] See, State v. Lopez, 00-0562, p. 5 (La.10/30/00), .
State of Louisiana v. Charles E Morris, Glenivan Cottle and Donell Badgett La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Morris 854 So. 2d 989 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
The Louisiana Supreme Court cited the Whren case in State v. Lopez, 00-0562 (La.10/30/00), .
State v. Thompson 842 So. 2d 330 La. 2003
1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); State v. Lopez, 00-0562 La.10/30/00), ; (La.App.
State v. Brister 829 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
1769, 1774 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996).” State v. Lopez, 00-0562, p. 3 (La.11/3/00); .
State v. Fleming 820 So. 2d 1108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Lopez 2000-0562 (La.l 1/3/00), ; State v. Toca 99-1871 (La.App.
State v. Neuman 817 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
See also State v. Lopez, 00-562 (La.10/3/00), , 93.
State v. Romsky 817 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
See also State v. Lopez, 00-562 (La.11/3/00), , 93.
State v. Miller 798 So. 2d 947 La. 2001
State v. Lopez, 00-0562, p. 3 (La.10/30/00), -93 .
State v. Barlow 792 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
In the recent case of State v. Lopez, 00-562 (La.10/30/00); , the Louisiana Supreme Court cited State v. Burton, 93-828 (La.App.
State v. Waters 780 So. 2d 1053 La. 2001
State v. Lopez, 00-0562, p. 3 (La.10/30/00), -93 .