Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Mickens

734 P.2d 646 (Colo. App. 1986)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Mickens

1 Citing case

  1. People v. Rodriguez

    945 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1997)   Cited 69 times
    Comparing Sharpe , 470 U.S. at 683, 105 S.Ct. 1568 (twenty-minute detention was reasonable); with Place , 462 U.S. at 709–10, 103 S.Ct. 2637 (ninety-minute detention of suspect’s luggage was "prolonged" and exceeded scope of stop); and People v. Hazelhurst , 662 P.2d 1081, 1086 (Colo. 1983) (twenty- to thirty-minute detention exceeded scope of stop); and People v. Mickens , 734 P.2d 646, 649 (Colo. App. 1986) (one-and-one-half-hour detention exceeded scope of stop)

    Third, whether the suspect was required to move from one location to another. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 504 (1983) (moving suspect from one location to another during an investigatory stop, in absence of safety and security reasons, exceeded scope of stop); People v. Mickens, 734 P.2d 646, 649 (Colo.App. 1986); see generally 4 LaFave, supra 9.2(g). Fourth, whether there were alternative, less intrusive means available and "whether the police acted unreasonably in failing to recognize or to pursue [them]."