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. Stevens, 672 So. 2d 986.

18 citing documents.

  • State v. Candebat 133 So. 3d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    5th Cir.3/26/96), , the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld because the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox.
  • State v. Vessel 131 So. 3d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    5 Cir. 3/26/96) , (where the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld after the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox.)
  • State v. Bell 70 So. 3d 1052 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    5th Cir.3/26/96), , the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld because the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers Incarried their drugs in a matchbox.
  • State v. Craft 870 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    5th Cir.3/26/96), , the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful patdown was upheld because the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox.
  • State v. Francois 778 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    5th Cir. 3/26/96), , the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld because the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most *679 street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox.
  • State v. Lipscomb 770 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    App. 5th Cir.3/26/96), , the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld *38 because the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox.
  • State v. Hughes 765 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    5th Cir.3/26/96), , the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld because the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their *429 drugs in a matchbox.
  • State v. Myers 756 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    5th Cir.03/26/96), , [2] the court upheld the seizure of a matchbox which contained cocaine based upon the "plain-feel" doctrine and noted: Police officers neither live nor work in a vacuum.
  • State v. Tyler 749 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    5th Cir. 3/26/96)[; ], , the seizure of the drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld because the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox.
  • State v. James 740 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    App. 5th Cir. 3/26/96), , which determined that, given the right circumstances, a matchbox can be immediately recognizable as something containing illegal drugs, (La.App.
  • State v. Smiley 729 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    App. 5th Cir.3/26/96), , the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld because the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox.
  • State v. Williams 729 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    App. 5th Cir.3/26/96), , the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld because the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level *146 crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox.
  • State v. Traylor 723 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    5th Cir.3/26/96), , the police observed Stevens flagging down a vehicle in a known drug area.
  • State v. Richards 713 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Gresham 712 So. 2d 946 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    App. 5th Cir. 3/26/96), .
  • Explained State v. Downing 710 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    5th Cir. 3/2/96), as dispositive.
  • State v. Barney 708 So. 2d 1205 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
  • State v. Denis 691 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    5th Cir. 3/26/96), , the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld because the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox.