Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Thompson, 354 So. 2d 513.

32 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Keyhaid J. McGee La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
Proof of probable cause “must be of facts so closely related to the time of the issue of the warrant as to justify a finding of probable cause at that time.” (internal citations omitted).
State v. Baker 247 So. 3d 990 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
App. 2 Cir. 3/14/12), , quoting State v. Thompson , (La.
State v. Williams 87 So. 3d 949 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Stated another way, “the proof (of probable cause) must be of facts so closely related to the time of the issue of the warrant as to justify a finding of probable cause at that time.” (internal citations omitted).
State v. Williams 53 So. 3d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In suggesting that the information in the warrant was stale, where the Court noted that the timeliness of the facts relied upon should be in the affidavit; the Court found that because all the observations in the warrant were couched in the past tense, the absence of any time frame for the information was fatal.
State v. Plain 752 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
He argues "staleness" of a search warrant can be considered in determining the warrant's validity and the admissibility of any evidence seized pursuant to the warrant, citing
State v. Davis 684 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
the supreme court stated: A search warrant will withstand an attack of ‘staleness’ if the facts contained in the affidavit have not become so attenuated with the passage of time so as to render those supporting facts non-existent.
State v. Loyden 597 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
the Supreme Court stated at pages 514, 515: *158 "A search warrant will withstand an attack of `staleness' if the facts contained in the affidavit have not become so attenuated with the passage of time so as to render those supporting facts non-existent.
State v. Harlan 556 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Newsome 544 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
for the proposition that an affidavit which fails to state when the crimes took place and which is phrased in the past tense is insufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant.
State v. Johnson 534 So. 2d 1322 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Lewis 535 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Ford 525 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
“Thus, included in the general concept of probable cause is the necessary element of a reasonable belief that the contraband or evidence will not have been disposed of but will remain at the place to be searched at the time of the proposed search.”
State v. Shrader 514 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
stated: “The absence of a date for each episode described in the affidavit is not fatal, however.
State v. Stokes 511 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Fairbanks 467 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
[1] Defendant, contends the affidavit fails to establish probable cause because it lacks a time reference regarding both when the confidential informant observed the alleged narcotics transactions, and when he relayed that information to the affiant.
State v. Durand 461 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Wood 457 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Vincent 439 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Defendant further contends defectiveness in the recital that the informant saw drugs and a sale at the residence "earlier," arguing that the indefinitness of "earlier" precludes a conclusion that the information was not "so attenuated with the passage of time as to render those supporting facts non-existent," , (La.1978).
State v. Wise 434 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Bruno 427 So. 2d 1174 La. 1983
State v. Trahan 425 So. 2d 1222 La. 1983
State v. Cann 392 So. 2d 381 La. 1981
State v. Ogden 391 So. 2d 434 La. 1980
State v. Armstead 385 So. 2d 241 La. 1980
As we have previously stated, “included within the general concept of probable cause is the necessary element of a reasonable belief that the contraband or evidence will not be disposed of but will remain at the place to be searched at the time of the proposed search.”
State v. Lewis 385 So. 2d 226 La. 1980
State v. Tranum 384 So. 2d 367 La. 1980
State v. Nelson 381 So. 2d 477 La. 1980
State v. Morgan 376 So. 2d 99 La. 1979
we held that an affidavit which fails to make any reference to the time when the events took place, and which is phrased in the past tense does not provide the magistrate with sufficient facts to determine that probable cause to search exists at that time.
State v. Boneventure 374 So. 2d 1238 La. 1979
State v. Welsh 371 So. 2d 1314 La. 1979
this Court held: "A search warrant will withstand an attack of `staleness' if the facts contained in the affidavit have not become so attenuated with the passage of time so as to render those supporting facts nonexistent."
State v. Koncir 367 So. 2d 365 La. 1979
407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1971)
State v. Loehr 355 So. 2d 925 La. 1978
we held that an affidavit which fails to make any reference to the time when the events took place, and which is phrased in the past tense does not provide the magistrate with sufficient facts to determine that probable cause to search exists at that time.