Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Maryland v. Garrisongreen2 sentences2020The particularity requirement in the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment assures that “[b]y limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search ... the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to prohibit.” Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 , 107 S. Ct. 1013, 1016 (1987). 2020The particularity requirement in the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment assures that “[b]y limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search ... the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to prohibit.” Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 , 107 S. Ct. 1013, 1016 (1987). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Sterlinggreen2 sentences2011The purpose of the particularity requirement is to assure that the search “will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on | lfithe character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to prohibit.” Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 , 107 S.Ct. 1013, 1016 , 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987); State v. Sterling, 99-2598 (La.4/25/00), 759 So.2d 60 . 2010The particularity requirement in the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment assures that "[b]y limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search ... the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to prohibit." State v. Sterling, 99-2598, p. 3 (La.4/25/00), 759 So.2d 60, 62 (per curiam), quoting Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 , 107 S.Ct. 1013, 1016 , 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Shannongreen2 sentences2010To determine whether the particularity requirement has been satisfied, the search warrant should be tested in a “common sense and realistic manner without technical requirements of elaborate specificity.” State v. Shannon, 472 So.2d at 289 . 1994State v. Shannon, 472 So.2d 286, 289 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 476 So.2d 349 (1985). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Huffmangreen2 sentences1988See State v. Huffman, 419 So.2d 458 (La.1982). 1985State v. Huffman, 419 So.2d 458 (La.1982). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2010“The object of the particularity requirement is to prevent a search of the wrong premises; to insure an individual’s safety in his home from unwarranted police intrusion.” State v. Johnson, 408 So.2d 1280, 1285 (La.1982). 2010"The object of the particularity requirement is to prevent a search of the wrong premises; to insure an individual's safety in his home from unwarranted police intrusion." State v. Johnson, 408 So.2d 1280, 1285 (La.1982). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Josephgreen1 sentence1996In State v. Joseph, 524 So.2d 273, 275 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988), this Court held: In determining if the particularity requirement of Art. 162 has been satisfied, the affidavit and search warrant should be reviewed in a common sense and realistic manner, without technical requirements of elaborate specificity. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Leon
green
2 sentences2010In the alternative, the State argued that even assuming the cursory reference to the affidavit in the warrant itself was insufficient to incorporate the particular description of items to be searched for, the good-faith doctrine of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), allows for the admissibility of items seized and precludes the exercise of the exclusionary rule based on the good faith of the officer requesting authority to conduct a search. | sFinaIly, the State argued that the benefit of deterrence (of future Fourth Amendment violations) for what was 2010In the alternative, the State argued that even assuming the cursory reference to the affidavit in the warrant itself was insufficient to incorporate the particular description of items to be searched for, the good-faith doctrine of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), allows for the admissibility of items seized and precludes the exercise of the exclusionary rule based on the good faith of the officer requesting authority to conduct a search. | sFinaIly, the State argued that the benefit of deterrence (of future Fourth Amendment violations) for what was | 3 | 2000–2010 |
United States v. Russell Bonner, United States of America v. Wayne Bonner
green
2 sentences2001United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 963 , 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3430 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting); United States v. Bonner, 808 F.2d 864 (1st Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1006 , 107 S.Ct. 1632 , 95 L.Ed.2d 205 (1987); State v. Sterling, 99-2598 (La.04/25/00), 759 So.2d 60 . 2000United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 963 , 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3430 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting); United States v. Bonner, 808 F.2d 864 (1st Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1006 , 107 S.Ct. 1632 , 95 L.Ed.2d 205 (1987); State v. Sterling, 99-2598 (La.04/25/00), 759 So.2d 60 . | 2 | 2000–2001 |
Frappier v. United States
green
2 sentences2001United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 963 , 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3430 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting); United States v. Bonner, 808 F.2d 864 (1st Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1006 , 107 S.Ct. 1632 , 95 L.Ed.2d 205 (1987); State v. Sterling, 99-2598 (La.04/25/00), 759 So.2d 60 . 2000United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 963 , 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3430 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting); United States v. Bonner, 808 F.2d 864 (1st Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1006 , 107 S.Ct. 1632 , 95 L.Ed.2d 205 (1987); State v. Sterling, 99-2598 (La.04/25/00), 759 So.2d 60 . | 2 | 2000–2001 |
A. L. Laboratories, Inc. v. North American Philips Corp.
green
2 sentences2001United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 963 , 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3430 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting); United States v. Bonner, 808 F.2d 864 (1st Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1006 , 107 S.Ct. 1632 , 95 L.Ed.2d 205 (1987); State v. Sterling, 99-2598 (La.04/25/00), 759 So.2d 60 . 2000United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 963 , 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3430 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting); United States v. Bonner, 808 F.2d 864 (1st Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1006 , 107 S.Ct. 1632 , 95 L.Ed.2d 205 (1987); State v. Sterling, 99-2598 (La.04/25/00), 759 So.2d 60 . | 2 | 2000–2001 |
State v. Landry
green
1 sentence2014The state responded to defendant’s second motion to suppress the evidence by arguing that the Louisiana Supreme Court, in Landry, supra, and Thompson, supra, indicated that re-hearings to present new evidence on motions to suppress are generally prohibited. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Thompson v. Louisiana
green
1 sentence2014The court held that “[w]hen law enforcement officers grossly exceed the scope of a search warrant in seizing property, the particularity requirement is undermined and a valid warrant is transformed into a general warrant thereby requiring suppression of all evidence seized under that warrant.” Id. at 1199 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Groh v. Ramirez
green
2 sentences2010The purpose of the particularity requirement is not just the prevention of general searches but assures the individual whose property is subject to the search “of the lawful authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power to search.” Groh, 540 U.S. at 561 , 124 S.Ct. at 1292 . 2010The purpose of the particularity requirement is not just the prevention of general searches but assures the individual whose property is subject to the search “of the lawful authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power to search.” Groh, 540 U.S. at 561 , 124 S.Ct. at 1292 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc.
green
1 sentence1994Defendant's arguments about a lack of particularity ignore the fact that the title of a pleading does not matter, but rather "courts should look through the caption of pleadings in order to ascertain their substance and to do substantial justice ..." Smith v. Cajun Insulation, 392 So.2d 398 (La.1980). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Shannon
green
1 sentence1994State v. Shannon, 472 So.2d 286, 289 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 476 So.2d 349 (1985). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Manzella
green
1 sentence1990Defendant relies on State v. Manzella, 392 So.2d 403 (La.1980), to support the proposition that a warrant does not meet the particularity requirement if it describes the wrong place to be searched. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Smith v. Wembley Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence1989The plaintiff's petition thus fully complies with the particularity requirement of Article 596(2), as did the petition in Smith. 490 So.2d at 1108 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Railroad Comm'n of Wis. v. Maxcy
green
1 sentence1985However, one of the purposes of this requirement is to prevent "the issuance of warrants on loose, vague, or doubtful bases of fact." Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed.2d 374 (1931). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States
green
1 sentence1985However, one of the purposes of this requirement is to prevent "the issuance of warrants on loose, vague, or doubtful bases of fact." Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 , 51 S.Ct. 153 , 75 L.Ed.2d 374 (1931). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Pieper v. United States
green
1 sentence1983Pieper v. United States, 604 F.2d 1131 (8th Cir.1979). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
United States v. George Wuagneux
green
1 sentence1983United States v. Wuagneux, supra , and cases cited therein. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
green
2 sentences1983General warrants, of course, are prohibited by the fourth amendment. "[T]he problem [posed by the general warrant] is not that of intrusion per se, but of a general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings.... [The Fourth Amendment addresses the problem] by requiring a `particular description' of the things to be seized." Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). 1983General warrants, of course, are prohibited by the fourth amendment. "[T]he problem [posed by the general warrant] is not that of intrusion per se, but of a general, exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings.... [The Fourth Amendment addresses the problem] by requiring a `particular description' of the things to be seized." Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Rozas v. Evangeline Parish Police Jury
green
1 sentence1977Rozas v. Evangeline Parish Police Jury, 214 So.2d 398 (La.App.3d Cir. 1968). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.