DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Owen, 453 So. 2d 1202.

95 citing documents.

  • State Of Louisiana v. Raymond L. Hart La. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Terry E. McCall La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
  • State of Louisiana v. Montreal Davis La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
  • State of Louisiana v. Woodrow Johnson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
  • State v. Lewis 256 So. 3d 978 La. 2018
    See State v. Owen , , 1206 (La.
  • State v. Salinas 251 So. 3d 1166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    1984) ; State v. Owen , , 1205 (La.
  • State v. Young 245 So. 3d 353 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
    07/06/10), , citing State v. Owen , (La.
  • State v. Farris 210 So. 3d 877 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
  • State of Louisiana Versus Errol Victor, Sr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
  • State v. Victor 195 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    At the federal level, it has long been settled that “one may not raise the violation of a third person’s constitutional rights.”
  • State v. Freeman 194 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    Thus, ,“[t]here is no equivalent under Louisiana constitutional law to the federal j.;ule that one may not raise the violation-'of a third person’s constitutional rights.” State v.. Jackson, 09-1983 (La.7/6/10)
  • State v. Williams 185 So. 3d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    State v. Dawson, 2014-0326 (La.App.
  • State v. Bradstreet 170 So. 3d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    5 Cir. 7/26/94), , writ denied, 95-0631 (La.1/6/97), ().
  • State v. Zeno 155 So. 3d 4 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State ex rel. T.H. 106 So. 3d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    “It is well settled that a search conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is per se unreasonablé subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” -06 (La.1984).
  • State v. Thompson 93 So. 3d 553 La. 2012
    34 “It is well settled that a search conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is per se unreasonable subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” -1206 (La.1984).
  • State of Louisiana v. Ricky J. Charpentier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    (citations omitted), the supreme court explained: [I]f the consent was obtained after an illegal detention or entry, the consent was valid only if it was the product of a free will and not the result of an exploitation of the previous illegality.
  • State v. Charpentier 86 So. 3d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    (citations omitted), the supreme court explained: [I]f the consent was obtained after an illegal detention or entry, the consent was valid only if it was the product of a free will and not the result of an exploitation of the previous illegality.
  • State ex rel. J.H. 83 So. 3d 1100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    5 Cir. 7/26/94), , writ denied, 95-0631 (La.1/6/97), ().
  • State v. Roberson 81 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Harris 79 So. 3d 1037 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Parker 71 So. 3d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    5 Cir. 7/26/94), , writ denied, 95-0631 (La.1/6/97), ().
  • State v. Thompson 58 So. 3d 994 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975)
  • State v. Nicholas 51 So. 3d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); cert.
  • State v. Jackson 42 So. 3d 368 La. 2010
    Thus, “[t]here is no equivalent under Louisiana constitutional law to the federal rule that one may not raise the violation of a third person’s constitutional rights.”
  • State v. Patterson 38 So. 3d 1131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    the Court explained how an individual’s standing to challenge a violation of privacy is treated differently by our state and federal constitutions as follows: The federal jurisprudential rule is that one has standing only if the search or seizure allegedly violated the defendant’s own constitutional rights
  • State v. Brown 35 So. 3d 1069 La. 2010
    Thus, “[tjhere is no equivalent under Louisiana constitutional law to the federal rule that one may not raise the violation of a third person’s constitutional rights.”
  • State v. Marks 28 So. 3d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State of Louisiana v. Davy C. Harris La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    (citations omitted), the supreme court explained: [I]f the consent was obtained after an illegal detention or entry, the consent was valid only if it was the product of a free will and not the result of an exploitation of the previous illegality.
  • State v. Harris 21 So. 3d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    (citations omitted), the supreme court explained: [I]f the consent was obtained after an illegal detention or entry, the consent was valid only if it was the product of a free will and not the result of an exploitation of the previous illegality.
  • State v. Thomas 981 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); (La.
  • State v. Walker 953 So. 2d 786 La. 2007
    Const. art. I, § 5 explicitly confers upon a Louisiana citizen broader standing than the federal Fourth Amendment to raise the violation of a third person's privacy rights, because it protects anyone "adversely affected" by the official action, Officer Schnapp's intrusion on the owner's privacy interests by entering her residence on the heels of an intruder and removing him without her express consent scarcely added to the initial disruption caused by the defendant's unauthorized entry into the
  • State of Louisiana v. Sean A. Strange La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Consent is a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement, and rendered lawful the subsequent discovery and seizure of the marijuana hidden behind the Thunderbird’s rear bumper.
  • State v. Strange 940 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Consent is a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement, and rendered lawful the subsequent discovery and seizure of the marijuana hidden behind the Thunderbird's rear bumper.
  • State v. Brumfield 944 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
  • State v. Stephens 917 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    State v. Gant, 93-2895 (La.5/20/94)
  • State v. Cambre 902 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    542 , 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999); State v. Stone, 94-155 (La.App.
  • State v. Strange 876 So. 2d 39 La. 2004
    Consent is a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement, and rendered lawful the subsequent discovery and seizure of the marijuana hidden behind the Thunderbirds's rear bumper.
  • State v. Comena 843 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
  • State v. McCoy 817 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • State v. Molette 798 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); cert.
  • State v. Campbell 778 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Normandin 750 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Edwards 750 So. 2d 893 La. 1999
    988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); cert.
  • State v. Bargeman 721 So. 2d 964 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    In ruling on the motion to suppress, (citations omitted), wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court explained: [I]f the consent was obtained after an illegal detention or entry, the consent was valid only if it was the product of a free will and not the result of an exploitation of the previous illegality.
  • State v. Franklin 719 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. McGill 720 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
  • State v. Purvis 684 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Strickland 683 So. 2d 218 La. 1996
    -1206 (La.1984) (citations omitted).
  • State v. Killian 677 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996