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.
9 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rodriguez v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024The Court held that “[a] seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Id. at 350-351, 135 S. Ct. at 1612 (quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 , 125 S. Ct. 834 (2005)). 2020Austin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1027, 1034 (Ind. 2013) (internal citations omitted). [23] In Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. at 1612 , the United States Supreme Court held that “[a] seizure justified by only a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Id. (quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005)). | 2 | 9 |
Illinois v. Caballesgreen2 sentences2024The Court held that “[a] seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Id. at 350-351, 135 S. Ct. at 1612 (quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 , 125 S. Ct. 834 (2005)). 2024The Court held that “[a] seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Id. at 350-351, 135 S. Ct. at 1612 (quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 , 125 S. Ct. 834 (2005)). | 1 | 6 |
Bush v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350-51 , 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1612 (2015). (“A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, becomes unlawful [under the Fourth Amendment] if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation.”) (quotations omitted); see also Wells v. State, 922 N.E.2d 697, 700 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (“Although a dog sniff is not a search, an officer must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to detain an individual beyond what is necessary to complete a traffic | 1 | 1 |
Patrick Austin v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2020Austin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1027, 1034 (Ind. 2013) (internal citations omitted). [23] In Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. at 1612 , the United States Supreme Court held that “[a] seizure justified by only a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Id. (quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005)). | 1 | 1 |
Wells v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350-51 , 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1612 (2015). (“A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, becomes unlawful [under the Fourth Amendment] if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation.”) (quotations omitted); see also Wells v. State, 922 N.E.2d 697, 700 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (“Although a dog sniff is not a search, an officer must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to detain an individual beyond what is necessary to complete a traffic | 1 | 1 |
Doran J. Curry v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2018Rodriguez, 135 S.Ct. at 1612 ; see also Curry v. State, 90 N.E.3d 677, 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (“The critical question is not whether the sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, but whether conducting the sniff prolongs or adds time to the stop.”), trans. denied. [14] In addition to determining whether to issue a ticket, an officer’s tasks during a traffic stop include ordinary inquiries such as checking the motorist’s driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Florida v. Royer
green
2 sentences2024The Court held that because addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, “it may ‘last no longer than is necessary to effectuate th[at] purpose.’” Id. at 354, 135 S. Ct. at 1614 (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 , 103 S. Ct. 1319 (1983), and citing Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407 , 125 S. Ct. 834 ). 2024The Court held that because addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, “it may ‘last no longer than is necessary to effectuate th[at] purpose.’” Id. at 354, 135 S. Ct. at 1614 (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 , 103 S. Ct. 1319 (1983), and citing Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407 , 125 S. Ct. 834 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.