Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Davis, 375 So. 2d 69.

28 citing documents.

Rodney Crayton v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Kayla Brignac La. 2017
Thus, the United States Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule, “a deterrent sanction that bars the prosecution from introducing evidence obtained by way of a Fourth Amendment violation.” Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 231-32, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 2423, 180 L. Ed. 2d 285 (2011); (La.
State of Louisiana v. Brenda Langlinais La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. Langlinais 27 So. 3d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Rochelle 877 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
citing Gagnon v. Scarpell 411 U.S. at 786-787 , 93 S.Ct.
State v. Hall 775 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
Distinguished State v. Black 706 So. 2d 423 La. 1997
art. 385 do not apply to revocation proceedings); 75 (La.1979) (revocation proceedings distinguishable from trials by "critical differences" so "formal rules of evidence do not apply in revocation hearings;" exclusionary rule of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct.
State v. Fields 686 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Williams 614 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Ponder 607 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); (La.
State v. Dabney 594 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
State v. Spencer, supra.
State v. Brew 593 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); (La.
State v. Absent 578 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973)
State v. Spencer 564 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
State v. Dassau 534 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
State v. Newman 527 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Cockerham 522 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
The State argues that since the exclusionary rule does not apply to revocation hearings, the revocation can be justified by proof of defendant’s arrest in possession of controlled substances.
State v. Matthieu 506 So. 2d 1209 La. 1987
613 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974)
State v. Sutton 494 So. 2d 1371 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
-74 (La.1979) It is only when an illegal search or seizure has been conducted by police officers in bad faith and is purposely directed at a probationer by officers with knowledge of his status that the court should exercise its discretion to exclude such evidence.
State v. Ussin 485 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
: “In Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct.
State v. Hall 487 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Cormier 438 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
State v. Pearson 424 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
formal procedures and rules of evidence are not employed.” at p. 72.
State v. Parker 423 So. 2d 1121 La. 1982
State in Interest of Pigott 413 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
4th Cir. 1980), remanded for computation of sentence; otherwise writ denied
State v. Clark 391 So. 2d 1174 La. 1980
State, in Interest of Wright 387 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); and State ex rel.
State v. Sussmann 374 So. 2d 1256 La. 1979