Carmouche v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that consent to search was not free and voluntary when officer ordered suspect to “[t]urn around and put [his] hands on the car”
• holding that an officer performing pat-down search may seize an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent
• concluding that an officer was justified in handcuffing suspect out of concern for his own safety
• holding that a videotape of an arrest that contradicted officer's testimony at a suppression hearing was sufficient for trial court to discount the officer's testimony
• holding that a videotape of an arrest that contradicted officer’s testimony at a suppression hearing was sufficient for trial court to discount the officer’s testimony
• holding that the police officer must be able to ―point to specific and articulable facts, which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion‖

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).