Cited by

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

85 citing documents.

State v. Landry 729 So. 2d 1019 La. 1999
Law enforcement officers are under no constitutional duty to call a halt to a criminal investigation the moment they have the minimum evidence to establish probable cause, a quantum of evidence which may fall far short of the amount necessary to support a criminal conviction."); cf., n. 5 (La.1983) ("[T]hat a better showing of probable cause could have been made, if the officers seeking the warrant had waited for the development of available information does not detract from the showing of proba
State v. Bailey 713 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
State v. Davis 684 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. McCartney 684 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)
State v. Hebert 676 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)
State v. Johnson 665 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
State v. Johnson 660 So. 2d 942 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)
State v. Young 642 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)
State v. Bailey 639 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
State v. Green 634 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Hunter 621 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Simms 571 So. 2d 145 La. 1990
854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)
State v. Matthews 552 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
The process to be used in determining probable cause to issue a
State v. Porter 547 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Jackson 545 So. 2d 1228 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Hill 546 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. McDaniel 531 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Loera 530 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)
State v. Scott 530 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Duron 524 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Shrader 514 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Viewing the affidavit as a whole and the fact that a magistrate’s determination of probable cause is entitled to great deference by the reviewing court, we are of the opinion that it states probable cause within its four corners.
State v. Hernandez 513 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
State v. Wells 517 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)
State v. Prestridge 507 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Jackson 508 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Scott 499 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
State v. Licciardi 483 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Smith 473 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Durand 461 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Johnson 457 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Allen 450 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Dooley 447 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
this case involves the magistrate’s determination of probable cause prior to issuing the warrant, and such a determination is entitled to significant deference by reviewing courts.
State v. Williams 448 So. 2d 659 La. 1984
State v. Olsen 446 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Barber 445 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
which declared: The process of determining probable cause for the issuance of search and arrest warrants does not involve certainties or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or even a prima facie showing, but rather involves probabilities of human behavior, as understood by persons trained in law enforcement an