Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Lee, 976 So. 2d 109.

148 citing documents.

State v. Fruge 95 So. 3d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant “exists when the facts and circumstances within the affiant’s knowledge and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that evidence or contraband may be found at the place to be searched.” State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Savoy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Savoy 109 So. 3d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Troy Lee Mundy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Mundy 87 So. 3d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
“A trial court is afforded great discretion when ruling on a motion to suppress, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent abuse of that discretion.” State v. Wilder, 09-2322, p. 2 (La.12/18/09), (citing State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Williams 85 So. 3d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Lee, 2005-2098 (La.1/16/08), .
State v. Moody 83 So. 3d 1107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Favors , 09-1034 at 9, 43 So.3d at 259 (citing State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Franklin 76 So. 3d 423 La. 2011
Further, even assuming that a warrant is required to take another buccal sample from defendant for purposes of testing by the Crime Lab’s Forensic DNA Section as part of the effort to solve a particular crime, and not as a routine incident of booking, because collection of the sample, although minimally intrusive, nevertheless constitutes a search, State v. Lee, 05-2098, pp. 16-17 (La.1/16/08), -24 , we agree with the state that it need show only a “fair probability” the sample may yield evidenc
State v. Munson 81 So. 3d 830 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Voltolina 77 So. 3d 1027 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Willis 75 So. 3d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
|Jn State v. Lee, 2005-2098, p. 44 (La.1/16/08), , the Court stated the requirements for admission of other crimes evidence: Generally, courts may not admit evidence of other crimes to show the defendant as a man of bad character who has acted in conformity with his bad character.
State v. Suggs 70 So. 3d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Lee, 05-2098, p. 15 (La.2008), , 122 cert.
State v. Sparks 68 So. 3d 435 La. 2011
Const. art. I, § 16; State v. Lee, 05-2098, p. 32 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Vargas 66 So. 3d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Lee, 2005-2098 (La.01/16/08), , cert.
State v. Cambrice 64 So. 3d 363 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Favors , 09-1034 at 9, 43 So.3d at 259 (citing State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Santini 64 So. 3d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Lee, 05-2098, p. 15 (La.1/16/08), cert.
State of Louisiana v. Jeffery Lee Guillory La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Guillory 61 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Wright 57 So. 3d 465 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.01/16/08), , cert.
State v. Payne 59 So. 3d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Handy 52 So. 3d 1012 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
“A trial court’s decision relative to the suppression of evidence is afforded great weight and will not be set aside unless there is an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Hunt, 09-1589, p. 7 (La.12/1/09), (citing State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Bell 53 So. 3d 437 La. 2010
See State v. Lee, 05-2098, p. 58 (La.1/16/08), .
State v. Franklin 46 So. 3d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
art. 162; State v. Lee, 05-2098, p. 30 (La.1/16/08), .
Alexander v. Lafayette Crime Stoppers, Inc. 38 So. 3d 282 La. 2010
State v. Lee, 05-2098, pp. 2-11 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Favors 43 So. 3d 253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Montejo 40 So. 3d 952 La. 2010
State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), .
State v. Morgan 34 So. 3d 1127 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
| isThe Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), , summarized the constitutional limitations on the collection of DNA samples as follows: “[I]t is undisputed that the collection of a saliva sample for DNA analysis is a search [requiring a warrant] implicating the Fourth Amendment.” Kohler v. Englade, 470 F.3d 1104, 1109 (5th Cir.2006); see also, Padgett v. Donald, 4
State v. Gibson 38 So. 3d 373 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Lee, 2005-2098 (La.1/16/08) n. 16 (citing La.
State v. Lawrence 32 So. 3d 329 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
1496 , 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988); State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), , cert denied, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct.
State v. Bradley 33 So. 3d 931 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Lee, 2005-2098 (La.01/16/08), , cert.
State v. Dee 34 So. 3d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
Distinguished State v. Brown 30 So. 3d 907 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Lee, 05-2098, p. 23 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Wilder 24 So. 3d 197 La. 2009
State v. Lee, 05-2098, p. 15 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Hunt 25 So. 3d 746 La. 2009
2041, 2043 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); State v. Lee, 05-2098, p. 14 (La.1/16/08), .
State v. Johnson 28 So. 3d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Major 26 So. 3d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Lee, 05-2098, p. 14 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Williams 22 So. 3d 867 La. 2009
We applied this standard in our recent decision in State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), , wherein we considered the defendant’s claim that he had carried his burden of proving mental retardation by a preponderance of the evidence.
State v. Bordelon 33 So. 3d 842 La. 2009
See State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), .
In Re Matter Under Investigation 15 So. 3d 972 La. 2009
In State of Louisiana v. Lee, 05-2098, p. 17 (La.1/16/08), -24 , this court addressed whether DNA collection could be compelled by use of a La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Rogers 19 So. 3d 487 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2009
State v. Lee, 05-2098, p. 15 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Skinner 10 So. 3d 1212 La. 2009
Finally, the trial court found that State v. Lee, 05-2098, p. 20 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Reeves 11 So. 3d 1031 La. 2009
See also State v. Lee, 2005-2098 p. 42-43 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Thomas 8 So. 3d 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Lee, 05-2098, p. 14 (La.1/16/08), .
State v. Warren 2 So. 3d 523 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
In State v. Lee, 2005-2098 (La.1/16/08), , cert.
State v. Johnson 994 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Lee, 05-2098, p. 14 (La.1/16/08), .
State v. Morton 993 So. 2d 651 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
"The inevitable discovery doctrine `is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Because the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered.'" State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), , quoting Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 539 , 108 S.Ct.
State v. Fournette 989 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980); State v. Lee, 2005-2098 (La.1/16/08), ; State v. Vigne, 2001-2940 (La.6/21/02), .
State v. Gettridge 987 So. 2d 247 La. 2008
State v. Lee, 05-2098 p. 23 (La.1/16/08), .