Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Rome, 354 So. 2d 504.

16 citing documents.

State v. Escoto 41 So. 3d 1160 La. 2010
Having adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning on the issue of inventory searches in previous decisions, LaRue, Rome, (La.
State v. Canezaro 957 So. 2d 136 La. 2007
In denying rehearing, the court of *139
State v. Harris 504 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Dorociak 493 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Borning 477 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
as an example of a conviction that was reversed because of an improper inventory search.
State v. Osbon 426 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Jernigan 390 So. 2d 1306 La. 1980
1978); State v. Hatfield, supra
State v. Bennett 383 So. 2d 1236 La. 1980
State v. Killcrease 379 So. 2d 737 La. 1980
State v. Anderson 377 So. 2d 837 La. 1979
State v. LaRue 368 So. 2d 1048 La. 1979
State v. Hatfield 364 So. 2d 578 La. 1978
State v. Schmidt, supra ; State v. Gaut, supra ; State v. Jewell, supra .
State v. Banks 363 So. 2d 491 La. 1978
State v. Jewell, supra .
State v. Schmidt 359 So. 2d 133 La. 1978
State v. Jewell, supra .
State v. Gaut 357 So. 2d 513 La. 1978
However, in these exceptional cases, the searches so conducted must be strictly scrutinized and limited to the exceptional restricted purpose for which narrowly authorized, (inventory search); (stop and frisk), lest they be used as a subterfuge by governmental agents to conduct a warrantless search without probable cause.
State v. Kolehmainen 354 So. 2d 1374 La. 1978
See State v. Rome, La., , as handed down on January 30, 1978.