Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hernandez, 410 So. 2d 1381.

139 citing documents.

State v. Every 274 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
He also argues the holding of State v. Hernandez , (La.
State of Louisiana v. Jeffrey Malveaux, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)
State v. Malveaux 245 So. 3d 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973) ; State v. Hernandez , ; State v. Zito
State of Louisiana v. Kayla Brignac La. 2017
State v. Cooper 223 So. 3d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)
State of Louisiana v. Joseph Michael Moultrie 224 So. 3d 349 La. 2017
R.T. Faulk, III, Corey Farms, L.L.C. Faulk Farms, Incorporated Joanne Hodges River Valley Properties McHenry Farms, L.L.C. Sherman … La. 2015
State v. Hall 160 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In order for an object to be lawfully seized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for an intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband.” (citation omitted).
State v. Carter 112 So. 3d 381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
549: |fiIn order for an object to be lawfully seized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
Louisiana v. Muller 30 So. 3d 1185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Ostrom 980 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Lee 976 So. 2d 109 La. 2008
2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)
State v. Lawrence 925 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
[3] in which the Louisiana Supreme Court found that there was no prior justification for a search incident to a lawful arrest where the defendant's car was on his private property and the defendant had been arrested, hand-cuffed, and taken away.
State v. Harris 916 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. White 903 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
For a different result 23 years ago
State v. Bennett 870 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
State v. Davis 859 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
State v. Dowell 857 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
eption: In order for an object to be lawfully seized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection |athat the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Trotter 852 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
State v. Thompson 842 So. 2d 330 La. 2003
The court noted that, one of the requirements for an object to be lawfully seized under the exception is that it must *335 be "immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband," and nothing in Sergeant Selby's testimony indicated that he immediately recognized "white tissue paper" as narcot
State v. Jones 822 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
(2) '.in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Young 820 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
xception: In order for an object to be lawfully seized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection'that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Benoit 817 So. 2d 11 La. 2002
2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990))
State v. Hight 810 So. 2d 1250 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Thompson 806 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
47 , 549: In order for an object to be lawfully seized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Frank 804 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
eption: In order for an object to be lawfully seized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection |4that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State Ex Rel. Olivieri v. State 779 So. 2d 735 La. 2001
1992) (cruel and unusual punishment); (search and seizure), we must follow the United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence in this area and therefore adopt this line of reasoning.
State v. Dorsey 779 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Wyatt 775 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Smith 766 So. 2d 501 La. 2000
(emphasis in original); see also, -65 (La.1993); Moresi v. Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, -1093 (La.
State v. Jackson 764 So. 2d 64 La. 2000
State v. Brenan 772 So. 2d 64 La. 2000
State v. Allen 762 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
xception: In order for an object to be lawfully seized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Held 748 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Winnon, supra .
State v. Martello 748 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Robinson 743 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
xception: In order for an object to be lawfully seized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Oliver 752 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Harris 744 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Price v. U-Haul Co. of Louisiana 745 So. 2d 593 La. 1999
(noting that this court "cannot and should not allow [the United States Supreme Court's] decisions to replace our independent judgment in construing the constitution adopted by the people of Louisiana").
State v. James 740 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
State v. Brown 733 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Cook 733 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Mitchell 731 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Stamp 718 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)
State v. Smith 715 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Taylor 714 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
State v. Blue 705 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Harris 700 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
In order for an object to be lawfully seized pursuant to this exception, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered;; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Ratliff 700 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Distinguished State v. Nolen 691 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
in support of his claim that the evidence was the product of an unconstitutional and illegal search and seizure.