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.
10 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Quirkgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Quirk , 842 N.E.2d 334 , 340 (Ind. 2006) (holding that "[w]here an officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, a request for the driver's license and vehicle registration ... are within the scope of a reasonable detention[ ]"); see also State v. Morris , 732 N.E.2d 224 , 228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that an individual's "failure to produce his license was a circumstance independent of the [ ] violation, which provided [the officer] with reasonable suspicion that [defendant] might not have a valid driver's license"). 2015Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1615 (2015) (citations, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted); accord State v. Quirk, 842 N.E.2d 334, 340 (Ind. 2006) (“Where an officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, a request for the driver’s license and vehicle registration, a license plate check, a request to search the driver’s vehicle and an inquiry regarding whether the driver has a weapon in the vehicle are within the scope of reasonable detention [under Article 1, Section 11].”). | 3 | 6 |
Halsema v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Id. (citing Halsema v. State, 823 N.E.2d 668, 670-671 (Ind. 2005) (license plate check performed after traffic stop); Lockett v. State, 747 N.E.2d 539, 543 (Ind. 2001) (an officer may as a matter of routine practice ask a driver stopped for a traffic violation if he has a weapon in the vehicle or on his person), reh’g denied; Jones v. State, 655 N.E.2d 49, 52-53 (Ind. 1995) (after a traffic stop, officer requested driver’s license and registration, asked the driver if the car and its contents belonged to him, and whether the officers could search the driver’s car), reh’g denied). 2006See, e.g., Halsema v. State, 823 N.E.2d 668, 670-71 (Ind.2005) (license plate check performed after traffic stop); Lockett v. State, 747 N.E.2d 539, 543 (Ind.2001) (an officer may as a matter of routine practice ask a driver stopped for a traffic violation if he has a weapon in the vehicle or on his person); Jones v. State, 655 N.E.2d 49, 52-53 (Ind.1995) (after a traffic stop, officer requested driver's license and registration, asked the driver if the car and its contents belonged to him, and whether the officers could search the driver's car). | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Id. (citing Halsema v. State, 823 N.E.2d 668, 670-671 (Ind. 2005) (license plate check performed after traffic stop); Lockett v. State, 747 N.E.2d 539, 543 (Ind. 2001) (an officer may as a matter of routine practice ask a driver stopped for a traffic violation if he has a weapon in the vehicle or on his person), reh’g denied; Jones v. State, 655 N.E.2d 49, 52-53 (Ind. 1995) (after a traffic stop, officer requested driver’s license and registration, asked the driver if the car and its contents belonged to him, and whether the officers could search the driver’s car), reh’g denied). 2006See, e.g., Halsema v. State, 823 N.E.2d 668, 670-71 (Ind.2005) (license plate check performed after traffic stop); Lockett v. State, 747 N.E.2d 539, 543 (Ind.2001) (an officer may as a matter of routine practice ask a driver stopped for a traffic violation if he has a weapon in the vehicle or on his person); Jones v. State, 655 N.E.2d 49, 52-53 (Ind.1995) (after a traffic stop, officer requested driver's license and registration, asked the driver if the car and its contents belonged to him, and whether the officers could search the driver's car). | 2 | 2 |
Lockett v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Id. (citing Halsema v. State, 823 N.E.2d 668, 670-671 (Ind. 2005) (license plate check performed after traffic stop); Lockett v. State, 747 N.E.2d 539, 543 (Ind. 2001) (an officer may as a matter of routine practice ask a driver stopped for a traffic violation if he has a weapon in the vehicle or on his person), reh’g denied; Jones v. State, 655 N.E.2d 49, 52-53 (Ind. 1995) (after a traffic stop, officer requested driver’s license and registration, asked the driver if the car and its contents belonged to him, and whether the officers could search the driver’s car), reh’g denied). 2006See, e.g., Halsema v. State, 823 N.E.2d 668, 670-71 (Ind.2005) (license plate check performed after traffic stop); Lockett v. State, 747 N.E.2d 539, 543 (Ind.2001) (an officer may as a matter of routine practice ask a driver stopped for a traffic violation if he has a weapon in the vehicle or on his person); Jones v. State, 655 N.E.2d 49, 52-53 (Ind.1995) (after a traffic stop, officer requested driver's license and registration, asked the driver if the car and its contents belonged to him, and whether the officers could search the driver's car). | 2 | 2 |
Harper v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Likewise, under the Indiana Constitution, “[w]here an officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, a request for the driver’s license and vehicle registration, a license plate check, a request to search the driver’s vehicle and an inquiry regarding whether the driver has a weapon in the vehicle are within the scope of reasonable detention.” Harper v. State, 922 N.E.2d 75, 81 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. [14] Here, the traffic stop was permissible under both the United States and Indiana Constitutions because Captain Pyatt had reasonable suspicion that Tellez- Salinas had committed | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morrisgreen1 sentence2019See State v. Quirk , 842 N.E.2d 334 , 340 (Ind. 2006) (holding that "[w]here an officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, a request for the driver's license and vehicle registration ... are within the scope of a reasonable detention[ ]"); see also State v. Morris , 732 N.E.2d 224 , 228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that an individual's "failure to produce his license was a circumstance independent of the [ ] violation, which provided [the officer] with reasonable suspicion that [defendant] might not have a valid driver's license"). | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2015Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1615 (2015) (citations, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted); accord State v. Quirk, 842 N.E.2d 334, 340 (Ind. 2006) (“Where an officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, a request for the driver’s license and vehicle registration, a license plate check, a request to search the driver’s vehicle and an inquiry regarding whether the driver has a weapon in the vehicle are within the scope of reasonable detention [under Article 1, Section 11].”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mitchell v. State
green
1 sentence2014Id. (citing Halsema v. State, 823 N.E.2d 668, 670-671 (Ind. 2005) (license plate check performed after traffic stop); Lockett v. State, 747 N.E.2d 539, 543 (Ind. 2001) (an officer may as a matter of routine practice ask a driver stopped for a traffic violation if he has a weapon in the vehicle or on his person), reh’g denied; Jones v. State, 655 N.E.2d 49, 52-53 (Ind. 1995) (after a traffic stop, officer requested driver’s license and registration, asked the driver if the car and its contents belonged to him, and whether the officers could search the driver’s car), reh’g denied). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Young
green
2 sentences2012Finally, in Commonwealth v. Young, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 548 , 940 N.E.2d 885 (2011), review denied, the Massachusetts Appeals Court also considered the search incident to arrest exception after Gant There, after responding to a report of gunshots, officers initiated a traffic stop on a vehicle for a traffic violation. 2012Finally, in Commonwealth v. Young, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 548 , 940 N.E.2d 885 (2011), review denied, the Massachusetts Appeals Court also considered the search incident to arrest exception after Gant There, after responding to a report of gunshots, officers initiated a traffic stop on a vehicle for a traffic violation. | 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.