DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Pomes, 376 So. 2d 133.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Anderson 949 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970); (1979).
  • State v. Kelly 946 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970)
  • State v. Marley 945 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970)
  • State v. Alexander 632 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970)
  • State v. Perrot 600 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    the court established the following factors: (1) That there be a prior justification for police intrusion into a protected area; (2) That the evidence be discovered inadvertently; (3) That it be immediately apparent, without close inspection, that the items are evidence or contraband.
  • State v. Washington 591 So. 2d 1388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Greathouse 583 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • State v. Tolliver 556 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); (La.
  • State v. Davis 555 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • State v. Hall 555 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
  • State v. LaBranch 541 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    the court established the following factors: (1) That there be a prior justification for police intrusion into a protected area; (2) That the evidence be discovered inadvertently; (3) That it be immediately apparent, without close inspection, that the items are evidence or contraband.
  • State v. Anderson 478 So. 2d 163 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Thompson 466 So. 2d 39 La. 1985
  • State v. Oliver 448 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    While the Louisiana Supreme Court has strictly interpreted this requirement ( [La.1974]), the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Coolidge phrase "immediately apparent" an "unhappy choice of words."
  • State v. Westfall 446 So. 2d 1292 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • 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. Yarbrough 418 So. 2d 503 La. 1982
    [2] Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct.
  • State v. Chapman 410 So. 2d 689 La. 1982
  • State v. Martin 400 So. 2d 1063 La. 1981
    2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); (La.
  • State v. Nicholas 397 So. 2d 1308 La. 1981
  • State v. McGary 397 So. 2d 1305 La. 1981
  • State v. Nieto 395 So. 2d 733 La. 1981
  • State v. Nieto 395 So. 2d 733 La. 1981
  • State v. Brown 395 So. 2d 1301 La. 1981
  • State v. Zielman 384 So. 2d 359 La. 1980
  • State v. Ragsdale 381 So. 2d 492 La. 1980