Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Tate, 407 So. 2d 1133.

25 citing documents.

State v. Every 274 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Tate , , 1137 (La.
State v. Williams 87 So. 3d 949 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
which involved the theft of a motorcycle, the court determined that even though two and one-half months elapsed between earlier observations of the affiant at the storage room maintained by the defendant, and the issuance of a search warrant to search the storage room, it did not render the search warrant s
State v. McLeod 843 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
State v. Hogan 839 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
which held that "staleness is only an issue when the passage of time makes it doubtful that *301 the object sought in the warrant will be at the place where it was observed."
State v. Horton 820 So. 2d 556 La. 2002
State v. Nelson 817 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Hodge 781 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Casey 775 So. 2d 1022 La. 2000
State v. Hebert 697 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Stewart 648 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Bruno, 427 So.2d at 1177 ; (staleness is not an issue unless time passage makes it doubtful that the object sought in the warrant will still be in the place where it was observed).
State v. Niel 640 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Ginorio 619 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
State v. Rattler 532 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
“Staleness is not an issue unless time passage makes it doubtful the object sought in the warrant will still be in the place where it was observed.”
State v. Loera 530 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
See and compare State v. Williams, *1280
State v. Roebuck 530 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Freeman 503 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
our Supreme Court stated: "An informant's tip can be significantly buttressed if either independent observations by the affiant corroborate sufficient details of the tip (whether suspicious or not) to negate the possibility that the informant fabricated his report, or independent observations by the affiant
State v. Isom 499 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Bourg 470 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Barber 445 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
the Court upheld a warrant issued 2½ months after the affiant's initial observation but corroborated by a more recent informant's tip.
State v. LeCompte 441 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: "An informant's tip can be significantly buttressed if either independent observations by the affiant corroborate sufficient details of the tip (whether suspicious or not) to negate the possibility that the informant fabricated his report, or independent observations
State v. Bruno 427 So. 2d 1174 La. 1983
State v. Rayes 424 So. 2d 260 La. 1982
State v. Duncan 420 So. 2d 1105 La. 1982
Aguilar v. Texas, supra .
State v. Schaeffer 414 So. 2d 730 La. 1982
584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); (1981).
State v. Tate 407 So. 2d 1131 La. 1981
This is a , in which the State has appealed the judgment of the district court granting the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence pursuant to a search under a search warrant for a U-Store and Lock ware *1132 house storage room, which search resulted in a charge of felony theft against the defendant.