# State v. Thomas

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · January 27, 2009 · 8 La.App. 5 Cir. 390

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9658260

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Louisiana v. Arthur THOMAS
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** January 27, 2009
- **Citations:** 8 La.App. 5 Cir. 390; 8 So. 3d 80; 2009 La. App. Unpub. LEXIS 310; 2009 La. App. LEXIS 2348; 2009 WL 196192
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jasmine
- **Judges:** Clarence E. McManus
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9658260

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the officer’s request for the defendant to place his hands on the police unit without the defendant’s compliance did not | ^constitute a show of authority sufficient to raise the encounter to an investigatory stop under the second tier of Fisher

## Opinion text

JASMINE, J.,
concurs with reasons.
hi agree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress. The majority finds that an investigatory stop did not take place because the defendant did not comply with the officer’s request to place his hands on the police car. In my view, defendant’s compliance with the officers’ request that he walk with them to the car constituted an investigatory stop. The officers gave specific, articulable facts providing reasonable suspicion for conducting this stop, thus the trial court correctly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9658260. Public record. Not legal advice.