Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Jewell, 338 So. 2d 633.

45 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Eric Stephen Elliot La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
State Of Louisiana v. Alexis Michelle Zebley La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
3d at 1163, dft State v. 3ewell, ( La.
State of Louisiana v. Dennis Goodman La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Michael Glen Robinson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Malik K. Lawson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
Additionally, in State v. Jewell, this court held, “[a]n essential requirement to a valid inventory search is that the police must have acted in good faith in conducting the inventory, and must not have used the inventory procedure as a subterfuge for a warrantless search.” (quoting Inventory Search of Impounded Vehicles, 48 A.L.R.3d 537, 544 (1973)).
State v. Loicana 254 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
638 (La.1976) (quoting Inventory Search of Impounded Vehicles, 48 A.L.R.3d 537 , 544 (1973) ).
State v. Jones 81 So. 3d 236 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Jones argues that a search may exceed the scope of the warrant only in limited, specified circumstances, none of which were shown in this case.
State v. Keller 77 So. 3d 378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
An essential requirement to a valid inventory search is that the police “must have acted in good faith in conducting the inventory, and must not have used the inventory procedure as a subterfuge for a warrantless search.”
State v. Escoto 41 So. 3d 1160 La. 2010
Additionally, in State v. Jewell, this court held, “[a]n essential requirement to a valid inventory search is that the police must have acted in good faith in conducting the inventory, and must not have used the inventory procedure as a subterfuge for a warrantless search.” (quoting Inventory Search of Impounded Vehicles, 48 A.L.R.3d 537 , 544 (1973)).
State v. Daniels 614 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
which held that a true inventory search does not violate the state constitution's prohibition against unreasonable searches.
State v. Tucker 591 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)
State v. Rack 585 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
State v. Laviolette 576 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); (La.
State v. Nixon 572 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
3092, 3098-99 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)
State v. Brumfield 560 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
3092, 3098-3099 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)
State v. Washington 540 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)
State v. Washington 540 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)
State v. Knippers 535 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Harris 504 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Carey 499 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)
State v. Dorociak 493 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Since the state claims that the evidence was seized pursuant to a valid inventory search it bears the burden of showing that “impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle was necessary and that the inventory of the vehicle’s contents was necessary and reasonable in its scope.” at 153 (La.1983)
State v. Borning 477 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Krempel 471 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Chimel v. California, supra
State v. Joyner 445 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)
State v. Moak 427 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); (La.
State v. Osbon 426 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Sims 426 So. 2d 148 La. 1983
3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)
State v. Cobb 419 So. 2d 1237 La. 1982
State v. Hernandez 410 So. 2d 1381 La. 1982
State v. Crosby 403 So. 2d 1217 La. 1981
State v. Stott 395 So. 2d 714 La. 1981
the court said: "The United States Supreme Court explicitly held that standard police procedure in making reasonable `inventory searches' of the nature above set forth, does not constitute unreasonable searches which offends the Fourth Amendment to the United States' Constitution; therefore, evidence obtain
State v. Jernigan 390 So. 2d 1306 La. 1980
State v. Duplantis 388 So. 2d 751 La. 1980
(1966) this Court also recognized the inventory exception to the requirement for a warrant.
State v. Hardy 384 So. 2d 432 La. 1980
: "The claim is made that the search was conducted pursuant to a departmental regulation.
State v. Killcrease 379 So. 2d 737 La. 1980
S. Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct.
State v. Anderson 377 So. 2d 837 La. 1979
State v. Jordan 369 So. 2d 1347 La. 1979
State v. LaRue 368 So. 2d 1048 La. 1979
State v. Hatfield 364 So. 2d 578 La. 1978
State v. Banks 363 So. 2d 491 La. 1978
Following the reasoning of Opperman , that true inventory searches of motor vehicles impounded for *494 reasonable cause do not offend the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable governmental search or seizure.
State v. Doucet 359 So. 2d 1239 La. 1978
the search cannot be justified as an inventory search.
State v. Schmidt 359 So. 2d 133 La. 1978
following the reasoning of Opperman , we held that true inventory searches of motor vehicles impounded for reasonable cause do not offend the prohibition of article 1, section 5 of our state constitution against unreasonable governmental searches, seizures, or invasions of privacy.
State v. Gaut 357 So. 2d 513 La. 1978
3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); (La.
State v. Rome 354 So. 2d 504 La. 1978
we noted that the warrantless search of a vehicle or its contents, without probable cause to suspect its contents and exigent circumstances, offends constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures.
State v. Taylor 347 So. 2d 172 La. 1977
See also State v. Jewell, La., (1976).