Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Davidson, 177 So. 2d 273.

21 citing documents.

State v. Christian 649 So. 2d 806 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
CCrP Art. 703 F; , (1965).
State v. Davenport 340 So. 2d 251 La. 1976
1962 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1031 ; , (1965); State v. Rideau, 246 La.
State v. Keys 328 So. 2d 154 La. 1976
State v. Ghoram 290 So. 2d 850 La. 1974
State v. Shreveport News Agency, Inc. 287 So. 2d 464 La. 1973
16 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1965); , (1965); State v. Rideau, 246 La.
State v. Cormier 272 So. 2d 686 La. 1973
State v. Franklin 268 So. 2d 249 La. 1972
State v. Eros Cinema, Inc. 264 So. 2d 615 La. 1972
Art. 3, which provides: “Where no procedure is specifically prescribed by this Code or by statute, the court may proceed in a manner consistent with the spirit of the provisions of this Code and other applicable statutory and constitutional provisions.” , (1965); State v. Rasheed, 248 La.
State v. Wilkerson 259 So. 2d 871 La. 1972
237 , (1967); , (1965) and State v. Rasheed, 248 La.
State v. Lawrence 255 So. 2d 729 La. 1971
309 , , , , decided before the adoption of our present Code of Criminal Procedure in response to the United States Supreme Court decisions in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct.
State ex rel. Brownfield v. Henderson 256 So. 2d 437 La. 1971
Considering the petition of the applicant, as well as the affidavit of the defense attorney (under our supervisory authority, cf., , ) the applicant states no ground for relief.
State v. Smith 245 So. 2d 327 La. 1971
State v. Andrus, supra; , , and State v. Rasheed, 248 La.
State v. Royal 232 So. 2d 292 La. 1970
Segurola v. United States, 275 U.S. 106 , 48 S.Ct.
State v. Anderson 229 So. 2d 329 La. 1969
State v. Wallace 224 So. 2d 461 La. 1969
1962 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1031 ; , (1965).
State v. Washington 211 So. 2d 290 La. 1968
we said: “Prior to the decision in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct.
State v. Page 206 So. 2d 503 La. 1968
1962 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1031 , .
State v. Page 206 So. 2d 503 La. 1968
1962 , 16 L.Ed.2d 1031 , .
State v. Fox 205 So. 2d 42 La. 1967
In any event, , , that if the defendant wishes to exclude evidence obtained by illegal search or seizure in violation of his constitutional rights, he must file a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence, or otherwise he cannot afterwards object to the evidence except by showing surprise or lack of opportunity to fil
State v. Andrus 199 So. 2d 867 La. 1967
State v. Rasheed, 248 La.
State v. Rasheed 178 So. 2d 261 La. 1965
These decisions are binding on the courts of this state, and, , , this day being handed down, “since the exclusionary rule must be applied in all state criminal cases in accordance with the edict in Mapp v. Ohio, the procedural rights of the accused should also conform with the standard provided by the Federal Courts and that he (the accused) should not be accorded