Legal Opinion

State v. Cardenas-Muratalla

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided February 3, 2014No. 68057-9-IPublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGrosse, J.

¶1 — To be valid under both state and federal law, a warrantless, investigatory stop, or Terry1 stop, must be reasonable, and it is the State’s burden to prove reasonableness. An investigatory stop is reasonable if the arresting officer can testify to specific and objective facts that provide a reasonable suspicion that the person stopped has committed or is about to commit a crime. In determining whether an investigatory stop and frisk is reasonable, courts look at the totality of the circumstances. The circumstances must suggest a substantial possibility that the particular person has…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Aguilar v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  4. Spinelli v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. Alabama v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1990

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. SaggersCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  2. United States v. Marc WillyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2022
  3. State Of Washington v. A.s-m.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2020
  4. State Of Washington v. Andrew Davis SaggersCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  5. State Of Washington v. James R. ScheibeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API