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.
15 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2026 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cortezgreen2 sentences2026“When a police officer stops a defendant without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving the reasonableness of the stop at a suppression hearing.” Cortez, 543 S.W.3d at 204 (citing Russell v. State, 717 S.W.2d 7 , 9–10 (Tex. Crim. 2025“When a police officer stops a defendant without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving the reasonableness of the stop at a suppression hearing.” State v. Cortez, 543 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. Crim. | 7 | 10 |
Russell v. Stategreen2 sentences2026“When a police officer stops a defendant without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving the reasonableness of the stop at a suppression hearing.” Cortez, 543 S.W.3d at 204 (citing Russell v. State, 717 S.W.2d 7 , 9–10 (Tex. Crim. 2023“When a police officer stops a defendant without a warrant, the State has the 5 burden of proving the reasonableness of the stop at a suppression hearing.” Id. (citing Russell v. State, 717 S.W.2d 7 , 9–10 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 6 |
Castro v. Stategreen1 sentence2021App. 2018); Castro v. State, 227 S.W.3d 737, 741 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Heien v. North Carolinagreen1 sentence2019Heien v. North Carolina, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 530, 532, 536 (2014); Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 117 , 185 (1990) (it is not required that factual determinations made by agents of the government “always be correct, but that they always be reasonable”). 5 When a police officer stops an individual without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving the reasonableness of the stop at a suppression hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garcia v. State
green
2 sentences2023“When a police officer stops a defendant without a warrant, the State has the 5 burden of proving the reasonableness of the stop at a suppression hearing.” Id. (citing Russell v. State, 717 S.W.2d 7 , 9–10 (Tex. Crim. 2023“When a police officer stops a defendant without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving the reasonableness of the stop at a suppression hearing.” Id. (citing Russell v. State, 717 S.W.2d 7 , 9–10 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 2020–2023 |
Handy v. State
green
2 sentences2023App. 1986), disapproved of on other grounds by Handy v. State, 189 S.W.3d 296 , 299 n.2 (Tex. Crim. 2023App. 1986), disapproved of on other grounds by Handy v. State, 189 S.W.3d 296 , 299 n.2 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 2014–2023 |
State v. Patrick W. Colby
green
1 sentence2024“When a police officer stops a defendant without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving the reasonableness of the stop at a suppression hearing.” State v. Colby, 604 S.W.3d 232 , 237 (Tex. App.—Austin 2020, no pet.) (quoting State v. Cortez, 543 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.