Case Name: STATE of Louisiana, Respondent, v. Barry Eugene DORTCH, Applicant
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2004-04-29
Citations: 878 So. 2d 677
Docket Number: No. 38,929-KW
Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Respondent, v. Barry Eugene DORTCH, Applicant.
Judges: Before DREW, MOORE and LOLLEY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 878
Pages: 677–677

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana, Respondent, v. Barry Eugene DORTCH, Applicant.
No. 38,929-KW.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
April 29, 2004.
Cyrus William Frazier, III, for Applicant, Barry Eugene Dortch.
Iley H. Evans, District Attorney, Carl Binus Duke, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for Respondent, State of Louisiana.
Before DREW, MOORE and LOLLEY, JJ.

Opinion:
WRIT DENIED.
Suspicionless stops are permitted under a variety of situations. State v. Eppinette, 36,825 (La.App.2d Cir.2/11/03), 838 So.2d 189. Public safety requires some flexibility for police to investigate and prevent crime. State v. Wesley, 28,012 (La.App.2d Cir.4/3/96), 671 So.2d 1257. For example, police officers are justified in ordering passengers out of cars, for officer safety. It may be a slight inconvenience, but it is not a serious intrusion upon privacy interests. State v. Landry, 588 So.2d 345 (La.1991). Equally, a state law enforcement agent's brief stop of a citizen on a public waterway as a known witness to an observed violation of safety regulations is not a serious intrusion upon privacy interests. See, Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 124 S.Ct. 885, 157 L.Ed.2d 843 (2004).