Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Davis, 359 So. 2d 986.

23 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Cole Meeks La. 2025
The district court abused its discretion relying on State v. Davis, wherein this Court specifically observed the officers testified they “could not … readily distinguish between tobacco and marijuana hand-rolled cigarettes.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Michael Tate La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
Relator, in his writ application to this court, which addressed this very point: The officers testified that [defendant’s] physical movements in smoking and discarding the cigarette were not furtive or suspicious.
State v. McMasters 251 So. 3d 1139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
We also observed: [A]lthough [ State v. Davis , (La.
State v. Wallace 950 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Fleming 676 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Foster 635 So. 2d 397 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Moreno 619 So. 2d 62 La. 1993
State v. Clark 612 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
1982) where the Supreme Court found that an investigatory stop was not warranted when the officers saw the defendant smoking a handrolled cigarette.
Moresi v. State, Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries 567 So. 2d 1081 La. 1990
1979); 989, n. 4 (La.1978); Thus, the fact that an officer did not believe there was probable cause and proceeded on a consensual or Terry-stop rationale would not foreclose the state from justifying the custody by proving probable cause.
State v. Colvin 494 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Cantanese 493 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Harris 454 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
He was advised of his Miranda rights, we searched him and found another suspected marijuana cigarette and suspected [diazepam] ...” as controlling, defendant argues that police should not be able to search a citizen on “a mere whim and ...
State v. Miller 440 So. 2d 867 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
State v. Knowles 438 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
In support of his argument that the plain view doctrine is not applicable under the facts of this case
State v. Smith 433 So. 2d 688 La. 1983
State v. Varnell 410 So. 2d 1108 La. 1982
In so doing, which was relied on by defendant.
State v. Ragsdale 381 So. 2d 492 La. 1980
State v. Davis 375 So. 2d 69 La. 1979
[3] Thereafter, this court reversed defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin, holding the evidence used against him at trial (fifty tin foil packets of heroin) was the product of an illegal *71 search and seizure and, therefore, inadmissible.
State v. Hunter 375 So. 2d 99 La. 1979
1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
State ex rel. Davis v. Criminal District Court 368 So. 2d 1092 La. 1979
After his conviction was affirmed on appeal, Davis unsuccessfully applied for habeas corpus relief in the district court.
State v. Brown 366 So. 2d 550 La. 1979
State v. Matthews 366 So. 2d 1348 La. 1978
1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); No. 62,254; La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Washington 364 So. 2d 958 La. 1978