Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cochran v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided March 17, 2006No. 69A01-0504-CR-173Published

1DissentRiley, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion that the encounter between Marshal Adams and Cochran was consensual. Rather, I find that Cochran was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes without an objectively reasonable basis; consequently, I conclude that the information Marshal Adams gathered from Cochran during the seizure should have been suppressed.

The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that the test for determining whether a seizure has occurred is "nee-essarily imprecise, because it is designed to assess the coercive effect of police conduct, taken as a whole, rather…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Florida v. BostickSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Michigan v. ChesternutSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Finger v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Sanchez v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2004
  5. Shirley v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2004

1 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