Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Tate, 623 So. 2d 908.

35 citing documents.

State v. Lewis 126 So. 3d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir.1988); or where the circumstances of a long-range investigation of the defendants showed that there was a distinct possibility that drugs would be destroyed due to the past caution shown by those participating in the drug enterprise, (La.App.
State v. Carter 112 So. 3d 381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
seized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Davis 859 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
State v. Dowell 857 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
eized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection |athat the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Hickerson 838 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
4 Cir. 8/21/96), , '709, writ denied 96-2352 (La.2/21/97), ; (La.App.
State v. Kirk 833 So. 2d 418 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
4 Cir. 8/21/96), , writ denied 96-2352 (La.2/21/97), ; (La.App.
State v. Jones 822 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
(2) '.in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Young 820 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
seized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection'that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Benoit 817 So. 2d 11 La. 2002
State v. Thompson 806 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
seized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Frank 804 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
eized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection |4that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Finney 798 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Pounds 789 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
4 Cir. 1/7/98) , ; -15 (La.App.
State v. Mayberry 791 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Julian 785 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Dorsey 779 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
State v. Wyatt 775 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Allen 762 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
seized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Martello 748 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Robinson 743 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
seized pursuant to the “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Oliver 752 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Harris 744 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Brown 733 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
4 Cir. 1/7/98) , [4] ; (La.App.
State v. Cook 733 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Mitchell 731 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Watkins 726 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Smith 715 So. 2d 547 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Blue 705 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
State v. Harris 700 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
order for an object to be lawfully seized pursuant to this exception, “(1) there must be a prior justification for the intrusion into a protected area; (2) in the course of which the evidence is inadvertently discovered;; and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband.” (La.App.
State v. Ratliff 700 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. O'Shea 696 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. Addison 684 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
State v. Taylor 662 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
State v. Stokes 650 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
State v. Isaac 639 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994