Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Rodrigue, 437 So. 2d 830.

85 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Erick Garrison La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
Cunningham, 11- 0886, p. 7, 88 So.3d at 1201 (-33 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Derrick Jawond Cheley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
–33 (La.1983) (footnote omitted).
State of Louisiana Versus Billy Lampton La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
Thus, “[t]he magistrate’s determination of probable cause, prior to the issuance of a search warrant, is entitled to significant deference by the reviewing court and marginal cases should be resolved in favor of finding the magistrate’s assessment to be reasonable.” Green, 831 So.2d at 969 (quoting 9 (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Antonio Dante Key La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
The magistrate’s determination of probable cause to issue a search warrant is entitled to significant 23-KA-167 21 deference on review, and “marginal cases should be resolved in favor of a finding that the issuing magistrate's judgment was reasonable.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Jeffery Turner La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
Cunningham, 11-0886, p. 7, 88 So.3d at 1201 (-33 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Roosevelt Randolph La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana Versus Eric James La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
“The process [of determining probable cause] simply requires that enough information be presented to the issuing magistrate to enable him to determine that the charges are not capricious and are sufficiently supported to justify bringing into play the further steps of the criminal justice system.” (La.
State of Louisiana Versus Carlshane Dennis La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
“The process [of determining probable cause] simply requires that enough information be presented to the issuing magistrate to enable him to determine that the charges are not capricious and are sufficiently supported to justify bringing into play the further steps of the criminal justice system.” (La.
State of Louisiana v. Brandon Lang La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
Cunningham, 2011-0886, p. 7, 88 So.3d at 1201 (-33 (La.
State v. Every 274 So. 3d 770 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
State v. Rodrigue , , 833 (La.
State v. Murray 242 So. 3d 821 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Rodrigue , , 833 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Steve Duane Williams -Aka- Ayaz Sutaria La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Williams 201 So. 3d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Mitchell 182 So. 3d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
justice system.” (citing Jaben v. United States, 381 U.S. 214 , 85 S.Ct.
State v. Gaubert 167 So. 3d 110 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
State v. Powell 151 So. 3d 890 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“The magistrate’s .determination of probable cause, prior to issuance of a search warrant, is entitled to significant deference by the reviewing court and marginal cases should be resolved in favor of finding the magistrate’s assessment to be reasonable.” Green , 02-1022, p. 8, 831 So.2d at 969 ().
State v. Young 140 So. 3d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Aston 125 So. 3d 1148 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The magistrate’s determination of probable cause to issue a search warrant is entitled to significant deference on review, and “marginal cases should be resolved in favor of a finding that the issuing magistrate’s judgment was reasonable.”
State v. Clement 101 So. 3d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
112The magistrate’s determination of probable cause to issue a search warrant is entitled to significant deference on review, and “marginal cases should be resolved in favor of a finding that the issuing magistrate’s judgment was reasonable.”
State v. Collins 90 So. 3d 393 La. 2012
Given the preference for searches conducted under the authority of a warrant, “marginal cases should be resolved in favor of a finding that the issuing magistrate’s judgment was reasonable.” (citing United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109 , 85 S.Ct.
State v. Banks 95 So. 3d 508 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
“Marginal cases should be resolved in favor of a finding that the issuing magistrate’s judgment was reasonable.”
State of Louisiana v. Jamey L. Everett La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Everett 89 So. 3d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Cunningham 88 So. 3d 1196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The affidavit also must set forth sufficient information to enable a magistrate “to determine that the charges are not capricious and are sufficiently supported to justify bringing into play the further steps of the criminal justice system.” Foumette, | -¿supra.
State v. Friday 73 So. 3d 913 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Hill 64 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)
State v. Payne 59 So. 3d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Williams 53 So. 3d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
The affidavit must give the magistrate sufficient information “to enable him to determine that the charges are not capricious and are sufficiently supported to justify bringing into play the further steps of the criminal justice system.” see also, Green, supra; Rando, supra.
State of Louisiana v. George Earl White, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)
State v. Brown 32 So. 3d 939 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Moreover, this Court previously held: “[t]he process [of determining probable cause] simply requires that enough information be presented to the issuing magistrate to enable him to determine that the charges are not capricious and are sufficiently supported to justify bringing into play the further steps of the criminal justice system.” (citing Jaben v. United States, 381 U.S. 214 , 85 S.Ct.
State v. Johnson 994 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
“[M]arginal cases should be resolved in favor of a finding that the *599 issuing magistrate’s judgment was reasonable.”
State v. Fournette 989 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Shumaker 945 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Johnson, 27,522 (La.App.2d Cir.12/06/95)
State v. Robinson 871 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
State of Louisiana v. James R. Skipper La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
(citing Jaben v. United States, 381 U.S. 214, 85 S.Ct.
State v. Skipper 861 So. 2d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Moreover, this Court previously held: “[t]he process [of determining probable cause] simply requires that enough information be presented to the issuing magistrate to enable him to determine that the charges are not capricious .and are sufficiently supported to justify bringing into play the further steps of the criminal justice system.” (citing Jaben v. United States, 381 U.S. 214 , 85 S.Ct.
State v. McLeod 843 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Accordingly, in [ State v. ] Rodrigue, [ (La.
State v. Rando 848 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Moreover, this Court previously held: “[t]he process [of determining probable cause] simply requires that enough information be presented to the issuing magistrate to enable him to determine that the charges are not capricious and are sufficiently supported to justify bringing into play the further steps of the criminal justice system.” (citing Jaben v. United States, 381 U.S. 214 , 85 S.Ct.
State v. Green 831 So. 2d 962 La. 2002
(citing Jaben v. United *969 States, 381 U.S. 214 , 85 S.Ct.
State v. Jones 822 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)
State v. Sears 823 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)
State v. Horton 820 So. 2d 556 La. 2002
(citing Jaben v. United States, 381 U.S. 214 , 85 S.Ct.
State v. Julian 785 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)
State v. Washington 778 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)
Gibson v. State 758 So. 2d 782 La. 2000
854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)
State v. Hundley 760 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
State v. James 755 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)
State v. Casey 775 So. 2d 1022 La. 2000
Williams, 448 So.2d at 663 ().
State v. Young 751 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Bailey, *367 97-302 (La.App.
State v. Green 750 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)