Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Illinois v. Caballesgreen2 sentences2025“A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.” Id. 2023A traffic stop “justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.” Id. “[A] police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.” Rodriguez v. U.S., 575 U.S. 348, 350 , 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1612 (2015). [28] “The burden is on the State to show the time for the traffic stop was not increased due to the canine sweep.” Wilson v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1064, 1067 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). | 4 | 20 |
Myers v. Stategreen2 sentences2016“Specifically, & traffic stop ‘that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.’” Id. (quoting Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind.2005)). 2013A traffic stop “justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket can become unlawful if it [is] prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.” Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. 2005) (quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 , 125 S. Ct. 834, 837 (2005)). | 3 | 3 |
Rodriguez v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2023A traffic stop “justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.” Id. “[A] police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.” Rodriguez v. U.S., 575 U.S. 348, 350 , 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1612 (2015). [28] “The burden is on the State to show the time for the traffic stop was not increased due to the canine sweep.” Wilson v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1064, 1067 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). 2023A traffic stop “justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.” Id. “[A] police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.” Rodriguez v. U.S., 575 U.S. 348, 350 , 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1612 (2015). [28] “The burden is on the State to show the time for the traffic stop was not increased due to the canine sweep.” Wilson v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1064, 1067 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Stategreen1 sentence2023A traffic stop “justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.” Id. “[A] police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.” Rodriguez v. U.S., 575 U.S. 348, 350 , 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1612 (2015). [28] “The burden is on the State to show the time for the traffic stop was not increased due to the canine sweep.” Wilson v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1064, 1067 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hobbsgreen1 sentence2018Thus, although a dog sniff is not a search requiring any degree of suspicion, State v. Hobbs, 933 N.E.2d 1281, 1286 (Ind. 2010), an officer may not use a narcotics detection dog during the course of a traffic stop “in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual,” Rodriquez v. United States, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1615 (2015). [12] Here, the trial court found the traffic stop was delayed by five to seven minutes to allow the dog to do a narcotics sniff.6 However, information lawfully 6 The State disputes that the dog | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whren v. United States
green
1 sentence2012However, Graham notes, “a seizure that is lawful at its inception can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes upon interests protected by the Constitution.” Id. (citing Illinois v. Cab *717 alles, 543 U.S. 405, 407 , 125 S.Ct. 834 , 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005).) Caballes holds a seizure “that, is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission.” Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407 , 125 S.Ct. 834 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.