Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hill, 725 So. 2d 1282.

26 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Lauren Nicole Diaz La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
11/6/98), wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court had to determine whether the lower court properly suppressed evidence seized from the defendant in a search incident to his arrest on outstanding warrants, after determining that the initial Terry stop was unlawful.
State Of Louisiana v. Byrielle Hebert La. 2021
Lovie Marshall, as curator obo Ezekiel Blakes, Sr., and Ezekiel Blakes, Jr. and Tashall Jones, individually v. Jean … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
11/ 6/ 98), to support the argument that the officers were " derelict" for not arresting Palmer, such reliance is misplaced.
State Of Louisiana v. Mark Houston Anglin, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
11/ 6/ 98), we find no error or abuse of discretion in the trial court' s ruling on the defendant' s motion to suppress.
State of Louisiana v. David Ray Newsom La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Newsom 250 So. 3d 894 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Taylor 97 So. 3d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
In State v. Hill, 97-2551 (La.11/6/98), -84 , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the exclusionary rule: The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter future impermissible police conduct.
State v. Wilson 79 So. 3d 1149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
2 In State v. Hill, 97-2551 (La.11/6/98), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that even assuming the initial police encounter was illegal, the discovery of an outstanding arrest warrant for the defendant dissipated any taint caused by the alleged illegal stop.
State v. Nicholas 51 So. 3d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
1054, 1060 , 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978); State v. Hill, 97-2551 (La.11/6/98), ; and, State v. Broussard, 99-1054 (La.App.
State v. Platte 40 So. 3d 375 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
He acknowledges the Louisiana Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Hill, 97-2551 (La.11/16/98), , but he attempts to distinguish Hill and cites cases from other states.
State v. Rogers 19 So. 3d 487 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2009
State v. White 1 So. 3d 439 La. 2009
r other dangerous weapon either used in the commission of a felony offense or the use of which constitutes an element of a felony offense may be declared to be crime-related contraband which may be seized by a law enforcement officer in the course of an arrest of issuance of summons or may be seized by order of court pursuant to other provisions of law.”); see State v. Hill, 97-2251 (La.11/6/98), (even assuming that Terry stop of defendant was unlawful, discovery of outstanding arrests warrants
State v. Mathieu 988 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
In State v. Hill, 97-2551 (La.11/6/98), , the Court held that even if an officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop a defendant and question him, subsequently learning that there was an outstanding warrant for' the defendant’s arrest was an intervening factor that purged *806 any taint from an illegal stop.
State v. Honeycutt 987 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Furthermore, under State v. Hill, 97-2551 (La.11/6/98), , the search of the inside of Defendant's pants was lawful as it was conducted incidental to the lawful arrest.
State v. Hills 924 So. 2d 995 La. 2006
State v. Broadway 920 So. 2d 960 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Hill, 97-2551 (La.11/6/98), .
Distinguished State v. Smith 876 So. 2d 788 La. 2004
See State v. Hill 1997-2551 (La.11/6/98), .
State v. Cheatham 876 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Instead, he contends that the trial court should not have followed State v. Hill, 97-2551 (La.11/16/98), , because to do so allowed the police in this case to circumvent the purpose of the exclusionary rule, which is to deter police misconduct.
State v. Toups 833 So. 2d 910 La. 2002
See, e.g., State v. Hill, 97-2551 (La.11/6/98), ; State v. Randleston , 96-1646 (La.10/4/96), .
State v. Broussard 819 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Hill, 97-255, p. 2 (La.11/6/98), .
State v. McCoy 817 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
P. art. 703(A) known as the “attenuation doctrine,” where the connection between the initial unconstitutional detention and the discovered evidence have “become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.” State v. Hill, 97-2551 (La.11/6/98)
State v. Marin 806 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
The State bases its contention on two arguments: (1) the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant; and (2) even if the officer did not have reasonable suspicion for the stop, the arrest and subsequent seizure of the evidence was authorized pursuant to State v. Hill, 97-2551 (La.11/6/98), .
State v. Howard 799 So. 2d 1140 La. 2001
Granted; trial court judgment reversed; motion to suppress denied; See
State v. Aicklen 767 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
However, the officers' actions of handcuffing the defendant had no bearing on their observations of the crack pipe sitting in plain view on the nightstand next to the gun and bullets; therefore, under State v. Hill, 97-2551 (La.11/6/98), , the trial court correctly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence.
State v. Fontenot 754 So. 2d 238 La. 2000
State v. Perez 744 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Although the State failed to make the argument in its application, State v. Hill, 97-2551 (La.11/6/98), , guides our decision.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by