Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bell, 566 So. 2d 959.

79 citing documents.

State v. Blanchard 776 So. 2d 1165 La. 2001
14:95.1); ("constructive" possession of drugs by defendant seated in car with drugs on the console satisfies "possession" element of La.
State v. Hodge 781 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Crowell 773 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Alford 765 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Myers 756 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
4th Cir. 1989), rev'd in part on other grounds, which upheld the plain-view seizure of a tightly-wrapped white package on the console of a parked vehicle; See also Willis, supra, which upheld the seizure of crack pipes pursuant to the "plain feel" doctrine; State v. James, 98-2348 (La.App.
State v. Mitchell 731 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Montgomery 734 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
State v. Reyes 726 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
40:967F and 40:979:967A; State v. Cooper, 93-863 (La.App.
State v. Sandifer 679 So. 2d 1324 La. 1996
State v. Smith 672 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Clay 670 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
State v. Laws 666 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
State v. Addison 665 So. 2d 1224 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Harris, supra, (La.App.
State v. Harris 657 So. 2d 1072 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Harris 647 So. 2d 337 La. 1994
State v. Reynaga 643 So. 2d 431 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
the State must show more than mere presence near the drugs to establish possession.
State v. Pollard 640 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. Cooper 635 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
State v. Skipper 632 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
4th Cir.1989), rev. in pari on other grounds, (1990), this court concluded that evidence was properly seized under the plain view exception.
State v. Clark 612 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
4th Cir.1989), rev. in part on other grounds, (1990), this court concluded that evidence was properly seized under the plain view exception.
State v. Tong 609 So. 2d 822 La. 1992
compare State v. *826 Bell
State v. Orozco 609 So. 2d 1043 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
State v. James 604 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
State v. Harris 597 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); writ denied; writ denied; LRS 15:271, 438.
State v. Compton 595 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
4th Cir.1989, rev. on other grounds, (La.
State v. Hookfin 601 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Harris 585 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Greathouse 583 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
4th Cir.1989), writ granted (1990), affirmed in part and reversed in part
State v. Olidge 575 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991