State v. Dortch
State v. Dortch, 878 So. 2d 677 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004).
Cited by
- Berthelot v. Berthelot 254 So. 3d 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- Galyn and James Montgomery v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
- Montgomery v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 103 So. 3d 1222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
- Wegener v. Lafayette Insurance Co. 60 So. 3d 1220 La. 2011
- Katner v. Katner 28 So. 3d 566 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Eppinette 838 So. 2d 189
- State v. Wesley 671 So. 2d 1257
- State v. Landry 588 So. 2d 345
Opinion text
WRIT DENIED. Suspicionless stops are permitted under a variety of situations. State v. Eppinette, 36,825 (La.App.2d Cir.2/11/03), 838 So.2d 189 . Public safety requires some flexibility for police to investigate and prevent crime. State v. Wesley, 28,012 (La.App.2d Cir.4/3/96), 671 So.2d 1257 . For example, police officers are justified in ordering passengers out of cars, for officer safety. It may be a slight inconvenience, but it is not a serious intrusion upon privacy interests. State v. Landry, 588 So.2d 345 (La.1991). Equally, a state law enforcement agent’s brief stop of a citizen on a public waterway as a known witness to an observed violation of safety regulations is not a serious intrusion upon privacy interests. See, Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 , 124 S.Ct. 885 , 157 L.Ed.2d 843 (2004).