8 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi 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 |
|---|---|---|
Graves v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Id. at 953 (¶7). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Garciagreen2 sentences2017At most, the officer saw defendant on a single occasion float to the dotted line and then float back to the fog line.”); State v. Roark, 229 S.W.3d 216, 217 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) (Officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and conduct a field sobriety test because the “[State Trooper Douglas] Barklage testified at trial that he saw Roark’s passenger-side tires cross the fog line twice, onto the paved shoulder of the highway . . . .”); Commonwealth v. Garcia, 859 A. 2d 820, 821-22 (Pa. Super. 2017At most, the officer saw defendant on a single occasion float to the dotted line and then float back to the fog line."); State v. Roark , 229 S.W.3d 216 , 217 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) (Officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and conduct a field sobriety test because the "[State Trooper Douglas] Barklage testified at trial that he saw Roark's passenger-side tires cross the fog line twice, onto the paved shoulder of the highway ...."); Commonwealth v. Garcia , 859 A.2d 820 , 821-22 (Pa. Super. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Roarkgreen2 sentences2017At most, the officer saw defendant on a single occasion float to the dotted line and then float back to the fog line.”); State v. Roark, 229 S.W.3d 216, 217 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) (Officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and conduct a field sobriety test because the “[State Trooper Douglas] Barklage testified at trial that he saw Roark’s passenger-side tires cross the fog line twice, onto the paved shoulder of the highway . . . .”); Commonwealth v. Garcia, 859 A. 2d 820, 821-22 (Pa. Super. 2017At most, the officer saw defendant on a single occasion float to the dotted line and then float back to the fog line."); State v. Roark , 229 S.W.3d 216 , 217 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) (Officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and conduct a field sobriety test because the "[State Trooper Douglas] Barklage testified at trial that he saw Roark's passenger-side tires cross the fog line twice, onto the paved shoulder of the highway ...."); Commonwealth v. Garcia , 859 A.2d 820 , 821-22 (Pa. Super. | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. City of Water Valleygreen1 sentence2008In Wright v. City of Water Valley, 832 So.2d 1241, 1244 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2002), this Court held that the law does not require a police officer to ask a suspect about any medical impairments that would prevent the person from performing the field sobriety test. | 1 | 1 |
Young v. City of Brookhavengreen1 sentence2003Young v. City of Brookhaven, 693 So.2d 1355, 1361 (Miss.1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Randy Charles Wilson v. State of Mississippi
green
1 sentence2024During closing argument, a “prosecutor may comment upon any facts introduced into evidence, and he may draw whatever deductions and inferences that seem proper to him from the facts.” Id. (internal quotation mark omitted). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Malcolm Cameron v. State of Mississippi
green
1 sentence2021Id. at (¶4). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
California v. Trombetta
green
1 sentence2015In Ellis , we held that “any exculpatory value of the events following the stop is significantly reduced” by a defendant’s admission “he was drinking and driving” and had been consuming alcohol earlier that day “and that he refused the field sobriety test and the Intoxilyzer test.” Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Stodghill v. State
green
1 sentence2012(See Stodghill v. State, 892 So.2d 236 , 238 n. 3 (Miss.2005)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.