warrant requirement in Louisiana

2018A warrantless search is per se unreasonable unless it falls within certain limited, well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. *86 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973) ; State v. Hernandez , 410 So.2d 1381 (La.1982) ; State v. Zito , 406 So.2d 167 (La.1981).

1996Additionally, the officers lawfully seized the cocaine pursuant to the "plain view" exception to the warrant requirement: For evidence to be seized under [the plain view] 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 [sic] discovered; and (3) where it is immediately apparently [sic] without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband." State v. Hernandez, 410 So.2d 1381, 1383 (La. 1982).

2012See Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940 , 116 S.Ct. 2485, 2487 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1996) (“Our first cases establishing the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement were based on the automobile’s ‘ready mobility,’ an exigency sufficient to excuse failure to obtain a search warrant once probable cause to conduct the search is clear.”); see also State v. Tatum, 466 So.2d 29, 31 (La.1985) (presence of exigent circumstances coupled with probable cause underpins “automobile exception” to warrant requirement, which allows police to “‘conduct a warrantless search of th

1999It is well settled that a seizure and search conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is per se unreasonable unless the warrantless seizure and search “can be justified by one of the narrowly drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Tatum, 466 So.2d 29, 31 (La.1985).

2002State v. Diaz-Rubio, 615 So.2d 1124, 1127 (La.App. 5 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-1010 (La.9/30/94), 642 So.2d 866 .

2000State v. Diaz-Rubio, 615 So.2d 1124, 1127 (La.App. 5 Cir.1993), writ denied, 93-1010 (La.9/30/94), 642 So.2d 866 .

1990"A search performed incident to a lawful arrest has long been recognized as an exception to the warrant requirement." State v. Wilson, 467 So.2d 503, 517 (La.1985), cert. denied Wilson v. Louisiana, 474 U.S. 911 , 106 S.Ct. 281 , 88 L.Ed.2d 246 (1985); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969).

1988“A search performed incident to a lawful arrest has long been recognized as an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Wilson, 467 So.2d 503, 517 (La.1985), cert. den.

2010Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); State v. Moreno, 619 So.2d 62, 65 (La.1993).

2010Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); State v. Moreno, 619 So.2d 62, 65 (La.1993).

2024“A search and seizure conducted without a warrant issued on probable cause is per se unreasonable unless the warrantless search and seizure can be justified by one of the narrowly drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Surtain, 2009-1835, p. 7 (La. 3/16/10), 31 So. 3d 1037, 1043 .

2018C.Cr.P. art. 213(A)(1) (providing that "[a] peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when ... [t]he person to be arrested has committed an offense in his presence; and if the arrest is for a misdemeanor, it must be made immediately or on close pursuit"); See State v. Surtain , 09-1835, p. 7 (La. 3/16/10), 31 So.3d 1037 , 1043 (observing that "[a] traditional exception to the warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest based upon probable cause") (citing United States v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218 , 224, 94 S.Ct. 467 , 471, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973) ).

2014This Court set out the pertinent law and considered the jurisprudence: In State v. Craft, 03-1852, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/10/04), 870 So.2d 359, 366 , we summarized the jurisprudence of the “plain feel” exception as follows: [Ejvidence discovered during a lawful investigatory frisk may be seized under the “plain feel” exception to the warrant requirement, as explained in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993).

2014This Court set out the pertinent law and considered the jurisprudence: In State v. Craft, 03-1852, p. 10 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/10/04), 870 So.2d 359, 366 , we summarized the jurisprudence of the “plain feel” exception as follows: [Ejvidence discovered during a lawful investigatory frisk may be seized under the “plain feel” exception to the warrant requirement, as explained in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993).

1989A warrantless search and seizure is per se unreasonable, unless justified by a specific exception to the warrant requirement. *996 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 at 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507 at 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 at 585 (1967); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 at 454-455 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 at 2032 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 at 576 (1971). [6] Prouse, supra, held that random stops of motorists without articulable or reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity were unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and signalled the need for "neutral criteria" to curb the unbridled discretion of police o

1989A warrantless search and seizure is per se unreasonable, unless justified by a specific exception to the warrant requirement. *996 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 at 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507 at 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 at 585 (1967); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 at 454-455 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 at 2032 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 at 576 (1971). [6] Prouse, supra, held that random stops of motorists without articulable or reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity were unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and signalled the need for "neutral criteria" to curb the unbridled discretion of police o

2009State v. Hathaway, 411 So.2d 1074, 1079 (La.1982). |hA recognized exception to the warrant requirement for entry into a building is a quick search of the premises to determine the presence of persons in need, the presence of a perpetrator who might still remain on the premises, or to prevent the destruction of evidence.

1984State v. Hathaway, 411 So.2d 1074 (La. 1982); State v. Smith, 392 So.2d 454 (La. 1980), State v. Abadie, 390 So.2d 517 (La. 1980) Police entry into a residence under "exigent circumstances" is one exception to the warrant requirement.

2023“Consent is [also] a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Strange, 2004-0273, p. 6 (La. 5/14/04), 876 So.2d 39, 42 (citing State v. Owen, 453 So.2d 1202, 1206 (La.1984)).

2006Consent is a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement, State v. Owen, 453 So.2d 1202, 1206 (La.1984); State v. Packard, 389 So.2d 56, 58 (La.1980), and rendered lawful the subsequent discovery and seizure of the marijuana hidden behind the Thunderbird's rear bumper.

2024Ed. 2d 485 (2009), discussed the automobile exception to the warrant requirement as follows: The Gant Court recognized the continuing viability of the “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement, noting that “[i]f there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity, United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-821 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982), authorizes a search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found . . .” Johnson, 21-0239, p. 14, 334 So.3d at 814.

2024Ed. 2d 485 (2009), discussed the automobile exception to the warrant requirement as follows: The Gant Court recognized the continuing viability of the “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement, noting that “[i]f there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity, United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-821 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982), authorizes a search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found . . .” Johnson, 21-0239, p. 14, 334 So.3d at 814.

2020Moreover, “[a] warrantless search is, per se, unreasonable unless it falls within certain limited, well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Hunt, 2009-1589 (La. 12/1/09, 6); 25 So.3d 746, 752 ; Schneckloth v. 2 Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2043 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); State v. Lee, 2005-2098, p. 14 (La.1/16/08), 976 So.2d 109, 122 .

2020Moreover, “[a] warrantless search is, per se, unreasonable unless it falls within certain limited, well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Hunt, 2009-1589 (La. 12/1/09, 6); 25 So.3d 746, 752 ; Schneckloth v. 2 Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 , 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2043 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); State v. Lee, 2005-2098, p. 14 (La.1/16/08), 976 So.2d 109, 122 .

2020Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940 , 116 S. Ct. 2485 , 24871 135 L.Ed.2d 1031 ( 1996) ( per curiam); State v. Waters, 2000- 0356 La. 3/ 12/ 01), 780 So. 2d 1053, 1058 ( per curiam); see also State v. Barnes, 2012- 0615 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 2/ 12), 2012 WL 5387692 , at * 3 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2013- 0634 ( La. 8/ 30/ 13), 120 So. 3d 264 ( under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a police officer can search a vehicle based on probable cause alone).

2020Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940 , 116 S. Ct. 2485 , 24871 135 L.Ed.2d 1031 ( 1996) ( per curiam); State v. Waters, 2000- 0356 La. 3/ 12/ 01), 780 So. 2d 1053, 1058 ( per curiam); see also State v. Barnes, 2012- 0615 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 2/ 12), 2012 WL 5387692 , at * 3 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2013- 0634 ( La. 8/ 30/ 13), 120 So. 3d 264 ( under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a police officer can search a vehicle based on probable cause alone).

2020Our cases have historically recognized that the warrant requirement is “an important working part of our machinery of government,” not merely “an inconvenience to be somehow ‘weighed’ against the claims of police efficiency.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 481 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).

2020Our cases have historically recognized that the warrant requirement is “an important working part of our machinery of government,” not merely “an inconvenience to be somehow ‘weighed’ against the claims of police efficiency.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 481 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).

2003In Tate , this court further noted: “In Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990), the Court held that evidence found in plain view need not have been found “inadvertently” in order to fall within this exception to the warrant requirement, although in most cases evidence seized pursuant to this exception will have been discovered inadvertently.” Tate at 917 .

2003In Tate , this court further noted: “In Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990), the Court held that evidence found in plain view need not have been found “inadvertently” in order to fall within this exception to the warrant requirement, although in most cases evidence seized pursuant to this exception will have been discovered inadvertently.” Tate at 917 .

2005Therefore, this exception to the warrant requirement would apply. [14] In his ruling, the judge relied upon Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), reh'g denied, 396 U.S. 869 , 90 S.Ct. 36 , 24 L.Ed.2d 124 (1969).

2005Therefore, this exception to the warrant requirement would apply. [14] In his ruling, the judge relied upon Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), reh'g denied, 396 U.S. 869 , 90 S.Ct. 36 , 24 L.Ed.2d 124 (1969).

2024The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “a search incident to a lawful arrest is a traditional exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224 , 94 S.Ct. 467, 471 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973).

2024The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “a search incident to a lawful arrest is a traditional exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224 , 94 S.Ct. 467, 471 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973).

1981In such a case the burden is on the State to show that the search was justified by some exception to the warrant requirement; Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); State v. Pomes, 376 So.2d 133 (La. 1979); State v. Matthews, 366 So.2d 1348 (La. 1978); State v. Franklin, 353 So.2d 1315 (La. 1977).

1978Although the redactors recognized the possibility of other exceptions to the general rule of burden of proof, see, La.C.Cr.P. art. 703, Official Comment (e); see, e. g., State v. Franklin, 353 So.2d 1315 (La.1977) (the State has the burden of proving that a warrantless search is justified under one of the narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement), the defendant has the burden of proof in overcoming the rebuttable presumption of the validity of the affidavit supporting the search warrant.

2018United States v. Matlock , 415 U.S. 164 , 171, 94 S.Ct. 988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974) ; State v. Edwards , 97-1797 (La. 7/2/99); 750 So.2d 893 , 901, cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 , 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999) ; State v. Gomez , 01-717 (La.

2018United States v. Matlock , 415 U.S. 164 , 171, 94 S.Ct. 988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974) ; State v. Edwards , 97-1797 (La. 7/2/99); 750 So.2d 893 , 901, cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 , 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999) ; State v. Gomez , 01-717 (La.

2017To the contrary, defendant asserts on appeal, that there is no “murder scene” exception to the warrant requirement, citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) and Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U.S. 11 , 120 S.Ct. 7 , 145 L.Ed.2d 16 (1999).

2017To the contrary, defendant asserts on appeal, that there is no “murder scene” exception to the warrant requirement, citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) and Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U.S. 11 , 120 S.Ct. 7 , 145 L.Ed.2d 16 (1999).

1975In further explaining the reasonableness of dispensing with the warrant requirement in certain automobile search cases, the United States Supreme Court pointed out in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970) that there are situations in which "* * * [t]he opportunity to search [the automobile] is fleeting * * *." In the present case exigent circumstances which would bring this search and seizure within the "automobile" exception clearly do not exist.

1975In further explaining the reasonableness of dispensing with the warrant requirement in certain automobile search cases, the United States Supreme Court pointed out in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970) that there are situations in which "* * * [t]he opportunity to search [the automobile] is fleeting * * *." In the present case exigent circumstances which would bring this search and seizure within the "automobile" exception clearly do not exist.

2021It is well settled that a search and seizure conducted without a warrant issued on probable cause is per se unreasonable unless the warrantless search and seizure can be justified by one of the narrowly drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement.1 State v. Thompson, 2002-0333 (La. 4/9/03), 842 So. 2d 330 .

2005In State v. Thompson, 2002-0333 (La.4/9/03), 842 So.2d 330 , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the subject of warrantless searches and seizures as follows: It is well settled that a search and seizure conducted without a warrant issued on probable cause is per se unreasonable unless the warrantless seizure and search can be justified by one of the narrowly drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement. 2002-0333, p. 6, 842 So.2d at 335 .

2025In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the United States Supreme Court recognized the investigatory stop as an exception to the warrant requirement.

2025In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the United States Supreme Court recognized the investigatory stop as an exception to the warrant requirement.

2018United States v. Matlock , 415 U.S. 164 , 171, 94 S.Ct. 988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974) ; State v. Edwards , 97-1797 (La. 7/2/99); 750 So.2d 893 , 901, cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 , 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999) ; State v. Gomez , 01-717 (La.

2008Compare State v. Edwards, 97-1797 (La.7/2/99), 750 So.2d 893 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 , 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999): Warrantless searches and seizures fail to meet constitutional requisites unless falling within one of the narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as a search conducted pursuant to consent.

2018United States v. Matlock , 415 U.S. 164 , 171, 94 S.Ct. 988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974) ; State v. Edwards , 97-1797 (La. 7/2/99); 750 So.2d 893 , 901, cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 , 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999) ; State v. Gomez , 01-717 (La.

2008Compare State v. Edwards, 97-1797 (La.7/2/99), 750 So.2d 893 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 , 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999): Warrantless searches and seizures fail to meet constitutional requisites unless falling within one of the narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as a search conducted pursuant to consent.

2008Compare State v. Edwards, 97-1797 (La.7/2/99), 750 So.2d 893 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 , 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999): Warrantless searches and seizures fail to meet constitutional requisites unless falling within one of the narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as a search conducted pursuant to consent.

2008Compare State v. Edwards, 97-1797 (La.7/2/99), 750 So.2d 893 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026 , 120 S.Ct. 542 , 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999): Warrantless searches and seizures fail to meet constitutional requisites unless falling within one of the narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as a search conducted pursuant to consent.

2016The defense relied on Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17, 21 , 105 S.Ct. 409 , 83 L.Ed.2d 246 (1984), and Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U.S. 11 , 120 S.Ct. 7 , 145 L.Ed.2d 16 (1999), for the proposi tion that there is no “crime scene exception” to the warrant requirement.

2016The defense relied on Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17, 21 , 105 S.Ct. 409 , 83 L.Ed.2d 246 (1984), and Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U.S. 11 , 120 S.Ct. 7 , 145 L.Ed.2d 16 (1999), for the proposi tion that there is no “crime scene exception” to the warrant requirement.