Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Culotta, 343 So. 2d 977.

38 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Jakorey Williams La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
Shiell, 204 So.3d at 1217; (La.
State v. Washington 104 So. 3d 401 La. 2012
Therefore, because a warrant cannot be predicated solely upon the observations made during an illegal search (), and “a search is not to be made legal by what it turns up,” (United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595 , 68 S.Ct.
State v. Williams 87 So. 3d 949 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
at p. 982, the supreme court held: We do not believe that the scope of the constitutional provision was necessarily intended to exclude from the trial evidence otherwise untainted, secured through a search warrant, because part *958 of the showing made in the affidavit used to secure the warrant is based upo
State v. Patterson 38 So. 3d 1131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Stephens 917 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
1860 , 161 L.Ed.2d 728 (2005)
State v. Long 884 So. 2d 1176 La. 2004
State v. Jenkins 765 So. 2d 1057 La. 2000
State v. Bailey 713 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Mills 665 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
This provision expands the scope of protection afforded Louisiana citizens by granting standing to contest the illegality of a search or seizure to “any person adversely affected.” the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that the defendants were not “adversely affected” within the meaning and purpose of the constitutional provision by the use of evidence illegally obtained from third persons in support of a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant; thus, the defend
State v. Isaac 639 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Gant 637 So. 2d 396 La. 1994
5 conferred on the defendant the right to question the validity of Lee's arrest as a means of challenging the legal basis of his own seizure, cf., that arrest following execution of the warrant was lawful and the information obtained from Lee was not tainted by any prior illegal conduct on the part of the police.
State v. Beach 610 So. 2d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
State v. Foley 570 So. 2d 171 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
however, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that the laudatory deterrent purpose served by the exclusionary rule did not mandate that illegally-seized evidence could not be considered in support of a finding of probable cause.
State v. Dakin 495 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the deterrent purpose served by the exclusionary rule does not mandate that illegally seized evidence cannot be considered in support of a finding of probable *347 cause.
State v. Hawkins 490 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
in support of his position.
State v. Owen 453 So. 2d 1202 La. 1984
State v. Bearden 449 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
*1114 But, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the deterrent purpose served by the exclusionary rule did not mandate that illegally seized evidence could not be considered in support of a finding of probable cause.
State v. Talbert 449 So. 2d 446 La. 1984
Const. art. 1, § 5 (1974); (La.
State v. Walker 430 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Barrett 408 So. 2d 903 La. 1981
[2] compare United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 , 100 S.Ct.
State v. Smith 392 So. 2d 454 La. 1980
art. 1, § 5 (1974), permits defendant to question the legality of the police conduct leading to the seizure.
State v. Gibson 391 So. 2d 421 La. 1980
State v. Bible 389 So. 2d 42 La. 1980
[3] Nevertheless, this court recognized that the laudatory deterrent purpose served by the Louisiana exclusionary rule does not mandate that illegally seized evidence cannot be considered in support of probable cause.
State v. Ragsdale 381 So. 2d 492 La. 1980
329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959); Probable cause for a search exists when facts within the officer's knowledge and of which he has reasonable and trustworthy information are sufficient to justify a reasonable man in the belief that the place to be searched wil
State v. Green 376 So. 2d 1249 La. 1979
State v. Singleton 376 So. 2d 143 La. 1979
("If the sole basis of the affidavit was such illegally-secured [through unconstitutional arrest] evidence, our conclusion might well be [that the evidence should be suppressed].")
State v. Huckaby 368 So. 2d 1059 La. 1979
State v. Jones 365 So. 2d 1359 La. 1978
State v. Anderson, La., (1978); State v. Ballansaw, La., (1977); State v. Culotta, La., (1976); State v. Sierra, La., (1976).
State v. Bouffanie 364 So. 2d 971 La. 1978
State v. Lamartiniere 362 So. 2d 526 La. 1978
State v. Boyd 359 So. 2d 931 La. 1978
State v. Anderson 357 So. 2d 547 La. 1978
State v. Ballansaw, La., (1977); State v. Culotta, La., (1976); State v. Sierra, supra; State v. Roach, La., (1975).
State v. Angel 356 So. 2d 986 La. 1978
The rationale of this exception to the general rule that information received after an illegal detention or arrest is inadmissible [ State v. Joseph, La., (1977); State v. Culotta, La., (1976)] is clear: there is no reason to distinguish, as a matter of law, between the coercive effect of an illegal arrest, a legal arrest, or police action under color of authority, since it is the voluntariness of consent which is decisive.
State v. Joseph 351 So. 2d 1162 La. 1977
State ex rel. Joyner v. Phelps 352 So. 2d 187 La. 1977
5 (1974); (docket No. 58,726, opinion on rehearing rendered October 10, 1977).
State v. Herbert 351 So. 2d 434 La. 1977
art. 1, § 5 extends to third persons a new and expanded right of standing to contest the use against them, at a trial on the merits, of evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment rights of another
State v. Smith 350 So. 2d 1178 La. 1977
The information's reliability may be established by (1) the informant's personal observation, State v. Harris, La., (1977); State v. Culotta, La., (1976); State v. Paciera, supra, or (2) the recitation of the facts upon which the informant based his conclusion, State v. Sierra, supra; State v. Vince, La., (1974).
State ex rel. Joyner v. Phelps 344 So. 2d 380 La. 1977
Evidentiary hearing ordered as to contentions one (see State v. Culotta, La., ) and two, of the habeas application.