LaFontaine v. State (1998)

green · 282 citation events across 11 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 50

Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

199820122026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Baker v. State (2001)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App. · 17 citations in this opinion

The primary purpose of the LaFontaine roadblock was to detect “any violation of Georgia law, whatsoever.” (Punctuation omitted.) 269 Ga. at 254 (Sears, J., dissenting).

Sears, J., dissenting

green Brown v. State (2013)

Rule Authority · Ga. · 8 citations in this opinion

We granted Appellant’s petition for certiorari, posing the question: “Did the Court of Appeals employ the correct legal analysis in assessing whether the decision to implement the roadblock was made by supervisory personnel rather than field officers, for a legitimate primary purpose?” As explained below, we reject Appellant’s initial argument that the checkpoint at which he was stopped was unconstitutional because the police sergeant who authorized it was not a “programmati…

green State v. Brown (2012)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App. · 6 citations in this opinion

The minimum constitutional prerequisites for a roadblock are outlined by the Supreme Court of Georgia in LaFontaine, supra, 269 Ga. at 253 (3): A roadblock is satisfactory where the decision to implement the roadblock was made by supervisory personnel rather than the officers in the field; all vehicles are stopped as opposed to random vehicle stops; the delay to motorists is minimal; the roadblock operation is well identified as a police checkpoint; and the “screening” offic…

green Jacobs v. State (2011)

Quote Authority · Ga. Ct. App. · 5 citations in this opinion

State v. Tousley, 271 Ga. App. 874 ( 611 SE2d 139 ) (2005). 2 See LaFontaine v. State, 269 Ga. 251, 253 (3) ( 497 SE2d 367 ) (1998) (“Roadblock stops have appreciably less intrusion on the part of travelers and do not create the fear and surprise engendered in motorists by roving patrol stops because the motorist is not singled out; the traveler is reassured when all vehicles are stopped.”) (citation omitted). 3 See City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U. S. at 48 (III) (Cour…

“Roadblock stops have appreciably less intrusion on the part of travelers and do not create the fear and surprise engendered in motorists by roving patrol stops because the motorist is not singled out; the traveler is reassured when all vehicles are stopped.”

green Rappley v. State (2010)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App. · 5 citations in this opinion

LaFontaine, 269 Ga. at 253 (3).

green Owens v. State (2011)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App. · 4 citations in this opinion

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U. S. at 41-42 (III); LaFontaine v. State, 269 Ga. 251, 253 (3) ( 497 SE2d 367 ) (1998). 2 To justify a traffic stop under this exception, the State must prove that a highway roadblock program “was implemented at the programmatic level[ 3 ] for a legitimate primary purpose,” that is, that the roadblock was ordered by a supervisor, rather than by officers in the field, and was “implemented to ensure roadway safety rather than as a constitut…

green Kettle v. the State (2016)