Idaho Supreme Court· 12/22/2004
State v. Baker
Citations
- 107 P.3d 1214
- 141 Idaho 163
- 2004 Ida. LEXIS 224
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that an officer did not seize the defendant by approaching the defendant’s car after using a spotlight to illuminate it
- stating that Idaho “joins the many other jurisdictions which have held that the use of a spotlight alone would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he was not free to leave, though it may be considered under the totality of the circumstances”
- stating that Idaho “joins the many other jurisdictions which have held that the use of a spotlight alone would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he was not free to leave, though it may be considered under the totality of the circumstances”
- no seizure when spotlight was used; citing cases with similar holdings
- use of spotlight is no seizure; collecting cases holding the same
- no seizure when spotlight was used; citing cases with similar holdings
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Kidwell, Schroeder, Trout, Eismann, Burdick
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. Garcia-CantuCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2008-05-07· cited 791×
- People v. LuedemannIllinois Supreme Court· 2006-10-05· cited 525×
- State v. HenageIdaho Supreme Court· 2007-01-26· cited 71×
- State v. WilloughbyIdaho Supreme Court· 2009-05-12· cited 42×
- Neale v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 2017-06-01· cited 17×
- Campbell v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals· 2006-02-01· cited 15×
- State v. RandleIdaho Court of Appeals· 2012-02-06· cited 11×
- State v. Plata IniguezIdaho Supreme Court· 2023-03-21· cited 11×
- State v. Tyson Michael PieperIdaho Court of Appeals· 2018-03-12· cited 9×
- State v. Alvarenga-LopezIdaho Supreme Court· 2021-08-31· cited 5×
- State v. Garcia-CantuTex. App. Ct., 9th Dist. (Beaumont)· 2007-05-23· cited 4×
- People v. BiagiAppellate Court of Illinois· 2017-02-22· cited 3×
- State v. ThornleyIdaho Court of Appeals· 2005-05-19· cited 1×
- State v. Candelario Garcia-CantuTex. App. Ct., 9th Dist. (Beaumont)· 2007-05-23
- State v. Garcia-Cantu, CandelarioCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2008-05-07
- State of Iowa v. Jaheim Romaine CyrusSupreme Court of Iowa· 2023-11-17
- People of Michigan v. Matthew Scott DuffMichigan Supreme Court· 2024-07-26
- U.S. v. TanguayD. New Hampshire· 2017-04-27
Cites
17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- United States v. MendenhallSupreme Court· 1980-06-30· cited 6,313×
- Florida v. BostickSupreme Court· 1991-06-20· cited 4,435×
- United States v. Rogest PackerSeventh Circuit· 1994-07-11· cited 85×
- Stewart v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1980-05-28· cited 47×
- State v. ClaytonMontana Supreme Court· 2002-04-04· cited 46×
- State v. PickIdaho Court of Appeals· 1993-10-25· cited 46×
- People v. CascioSupreme Court of Colorado· 1997-02-24· cited 42×
- People v. PerezCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1989-07-10· cited 39×
- Hrezo v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2001-01-31· cited 34×
- State v. HollandIdaho Supreme Court· 2000-12-29· cited 33×
- Commonwealth v. MulhollandSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2002-03-07· cited 24×
- State v. CalhounCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1990-05-23· cited 18×
- Siplin v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2001-09-05· cited 15×
- State v. StuartCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1990-11-01· cited 12×
- State v. WimbushDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-02-16· cited 11×
- State v. JustesenCourt of Appeals of Utah· 2002-05-16· cited 7×
- Mosby v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1991-02-27· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.