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. Crosby, 403 So. 2d 1217.

16 citing documents.

  • State v. Escoto 41 So. 3d 1160 La. 2010
    LaRue, 368 So.2d at 1051
  • State v. Griffin 984 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State v. Butler 631 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Daniels 614 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Short 588 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Laviolette 576 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    State v. Sims, supra, at p. 153 , (La.
  • State v. Washington 540 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Washington 540 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Carey 499 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Colvin 494 So. 2d 1357 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Dorociak 493 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Since the state claims that the evidence was seized pursuant to a valid inventory search it bears the burden of showing that “impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle was necessary and that the inventory of the vehicle’s contents was necessary and reasonable in its scope.” at 153 (La.1983)
  • State v. Davis 452 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    (Lemmon, J., dissenting)
  • State v. Joyner 445 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    In establishing its burden of proof that the actions of its officers constituted a valid inventory search, “the state must prove that the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle was necessary and that the inventory of the vehicle’s contents was necessary and reasonable in its scope.” State v. Sims, supra, at 153 , and State v. Jewell, supra.
  • State v. Moak 427 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Osbon 426 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Sims 426 So. 2d 148 La. 1983