Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Morris, 444 So. 2d 1200.

36 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Keyhaid J. McGee La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
State v. Brown 35 So. 3d 1069 La. 2010
2005 , 100 L.Ed.2d 236 (1988)
State v. Bozeman 6 So. 3d 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Bryant 775 So. 2d 596 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
State v. Hebert 697 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Isaac 639 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
State v. Mor *342 ris, (La.App.
State v. Daniels 634 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Distinguished State v. Calderon 630 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Further, relied on by this court to deny the writ application, is distinguishable from the instant ease.
State v. Lazarus 633 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Barrilleaux 620 So. 2d 1317 La. 1993
the court noted that a reviewing court examining a warrant with inadvertent material omissions which might have affected the issuing magistrate's decision on probable cause should add the omitted facts to the affidavit and then retest the sufficiency of the showing of probable cause.
State v. Bourque 622 So. 2d 198 La. 1993
2005 , 100 L.Ed.2d 236 (1988)
State v. Starks 615 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Schultz v. Louisiana Department of PubLic Safety & Corrections 606 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Morris, 444 So.2d at 1203; State v. Mosley, 412 So.2d [527] at 530 [ (La.1982) ].”
State v. Thomas 598 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
State v. Ross 561 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Smith 557 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Fontenot 550 So. 2d 179 La. 1989
2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); (La.
State v. Addison 551 So. 2d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Hill 546 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Newsome 544 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Bordelon 538 So. 2d 1087 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Mayes 532 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Defendant argues that the affiant was intentionally deceiving the neutral magistrate by suggesting the reported criminal activity was provided by a citizen-witness as opposed to "an unnamed denizen of the criminal underworld who habitually witnesses and reports criminal activity to police for pay or some other advantage.” at 1203 (La.1984).
State v. Scott 530 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Roebuck 530 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Tilley 525 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Hodges 526 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
where the Supreme Court stated: "Following the rule established in State v. Rey, supra, and expanded in State v. Lehnen, supra, we will rectify misstatements or omissions in the search warrant by correcting errors or supplying the missing information and then retest the affidavit for the presence of probable
State v. Hudgins 519 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
State v. Burleson 516 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Kyles 513 So. 2d 265 La. 1987
State v. Keife 504 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Anyone who gives information to police may be called an “informant.”
State v. Saddler 490 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State v. Brown 479 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Fairbanks 467 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
State v. Richmond 464 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
State v. Wyatt 462 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Stewart 451 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
compare State v. Ruffin, supra, note the dissenting opinion by Justice Lemmon, footnote 2