Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Palmer, 14 So. 3d 304.

14 citing documents.

State v. Cooper 223 So. 3d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
7/1/09), , stated, “even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to search....” Id.
State v. Jones 165 So. 3d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See State v. Palmer, 09-0044, p. 5 (La.7/1/09), .
Williams v. Dohm 153 So. 3d 542 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Thompson, 11-0915, pp. 25-26 (La.5/8/12), -572 ; State v. Palmer, 09-0044, pp. 8-10 (La.7/1/09), -310 ; State v. Trotter, 37, 325, p. 8 (La.App.2d Cir.8/22/03), , writ denied, 03-2764 (La.2/13/04), .
State of Louisiana v. Wendell Price La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
7/1/09), n.2 (citing Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct.
State v. Price 139 So. 3d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
A “public place” may include private property when an individual, although located on private property, is in an area where he has no expectation of privacy, is visible |14to the public, or is “exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch[.]” State v. Palmer, 09-44 (La.7/1/09), , 309 n. 2 (citing Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 , 44 S.Ct.
State v. Barabin 124 So. 3d 1121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Palmer, 2009-0044, pp. 9-10 (La.7/1/09), , the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the handcuffing of several people who fled from the scene when officers were executing a warrant did not elevate the detention to an arrest.
State v. Donald 115 So. 3d 1138 La. 2013
A trial court’s legal conclusions in ruling on a motion to suppress are subject to de novo review by an appellate court, State v. Palmer, 09-0044, p. 5 (La.7/1/09), , and the determination of probable cause for a search is ordinarily made within the four comers of a warrant application, unless the defendant carries his burden of showing deliberate or negligent misrepresentations made by the affiant.
State v. Gray 101 So. 3d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See also, State v. Palmer, 2009-0044 (La.7/1/09), .
State v. Thompson 93 So. 3d 553 La. 2012
State v. Palmer, 2009-0044, p. 9 (La.7/1/09); .
State v. Jones 78 So. 3d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In State v. Palmer, 09-14 (La.7/1/09), , the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress, noting that it agreed with the trial court that the officers’ use of handcuffs to detain defendant along with other individuals on the premises was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances conf
State v. Lara 78 So. 3d 159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Consent to search is “a non-communicative, non-testimonial statement falling completely outside the Fifth Amendment and therefore outside of the Miranda protections.” State v. Palmer, 2009-0044 (La.07/01/09), .
Explained State v. Marshall 70 So. 3d 1106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
See State v. Adams, 2001-3231 (La.1/14/03), ; State v. Porche, 2006-0312 (La.11/29/06), ; and State v. Palmer, 2009-0044 (La.7/1/09), .
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS PRESTON KINCHEN AKA STEVEN HALL AKA STEVEN WEBB La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Kinchen 71 So. 3d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
3 Cir. 12/10/08) , , reversed on other grounds, 09-44 (La.7/1/09), .