Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Paciera, 290 So. 2d 681.
-
State v. Angel
356 So. 2d 986
La. 1978
State v. Paciera, La., (1974), cited with approval in State v. Joseph, supra, sets forth the standard for determining the sufficiency of a supporting affidavit based upon informant supplied data: ".
- State v. Loehr 355 So. 2d 925 La. 1978
-
State v. Gilbert
354 So. 2d 508
La. 1978
-86 (La.1974), we established the following rule to scrutinize a supporting affidavit which relies upon informant supplied information to obtain a search warrant: ".
- State v. Stripling 354 So. 2d 1297 La. 1978
- State v. Tapp 353 So. 2d 265 La. 1977
- State v. Meshell 352 So. 2d 1020 La. 1977
- State v. Terrell 352 So. 2d 220 La. 1977
-
State v. Joseph
351 So. 2d 1162
La. 1977
This court, enunciated the following rule, deduced from United States Supreme Court cases, to measure the sufficiency of a supporting affidavit which is based upon informant-supplied data: ".
-
State v. Smith
350 So. 2d 1178
La. 1977
Then, in State v. Paciera, La., (1974), we outlined the requisites in an affidavit, as follows: "If we can deduce a rule from these cases, it is this: The affidavit submitted to the magistrate may be based entirely upon hearsay, but, if so, it must set forth underlying circumstances and details sufficient *1180 to provide a substantial factual basis
-
State v. Barrett
350 So. 2d 664
La. 1977
1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); State v. Wells, 253 La.
-
State v. Brawley
347 So. 2d 238
La. 1977
1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); (La.
- State v. Porter 344 So. 2d 1031 La. 1977
- State v. Mena 344 So. 2d 357 La. 1977
- State v. Culotta 343 So. 2d 977 La. 1977
- State v. Elzie 343 So. 2d 712 La. 1977
- State v. Harris 343 So. 2d 145 La. 1977
-
State v. Tassin
343 So. 2d 681
La. 1977
State v. Martin, La., (1975); State v. Humble, La., (1975); State v. Paciera, La., (1974).
- State v. Rittiner 341 So. 2d 307 La. 1977
-
State v. Hall
342 So. 2d 616
La. 1977
In State v. Paciera, La., (1974), we deduced the following rule: "The affidavit submitted to the magistrate may be based entirely upon hearsay, but, if so, it must set forth underlying circumstances and details sufficient to provide a substantial factual basis by which the magistrate might find reliable both the informant and the information g
-
State v. Manale
341 So. 2d 883
La. 1977
741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965); State v. Paciera, La., (1974).” “Probable cause” is deemed to exist when facts and circumstances within the affiant’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.
- State v. Williams 338 So. 2d 1365 La. 1976
-
State v. Sierra
338 So. 2d 609
La. 1976
1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964)
- State v. Cox 330 So. 2d 284 La. 1976
- State v. Thomas 329 So. 2d 704 La. 1976
-
State v. Brumfield
329 So. 2d 181
La. 1976
State v. Michel, 225 La.
- State v. Chaffin 324 So. 2d 369 La. 1975
-
State v. Luneau
323 So. 2d 770
La. 1975
Art. 162; State v. Paciera, La., (1974); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct.
- State v. Nix 327 So. 2d 301 La. 1975
- State v. Singleton 321 So. 2d 509 La. 1975
- State v. Smith 322 So. 2d 197 La. 1975
-
State v. Roach
322 So. 2d 222
La. 1975
we stated that direct personal observation by the informant was a factor that supports the reliability of the information reported.
-
State v. Martin
318 So. 2d 25
La. 1975
(1974), we reviewed the United States Supreme Court decisions dealing with this issue: United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 , 91 S.Ct.
-
State v. Humble
309 So. 2d 138
La. 1975
by which the sufficiency of the information contained in a supporting affidavit must be tested.
- State v. Boudreaux 304 So. 2d 343 La. 1974
-
State v. Flood
301 So. 2d 637
La. 1974
State v. Holmes, 254 La.
- State v. Jackson 301 So. 2d 598 La. 1974
-
State v. Vince
305 So. 2d 916
La. 1974
741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965); State v. Paciera, La., (1974).
-
State v. Devall
296 So. 2d 802
La. 1974
In State v. Paciera, La., (handed down February 18, 1974) this Court held: "In holding the affidavit sufficient, we are influenced to some extent by the circumstance that the affiant specifically named the reliable informants (the policeman) who furnished him the hearsay information as to the location of the stolen property, in addition to fur