motion to suppress hearing in Louisiana

113 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2024 3 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.

Followed or applied (30)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Burkhaltergreen la · 1983 · cited in 11 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1987–2017 2 sentences 2017Although the question of probable cause was placed before the trial court within the context of a pre-trial motion to suppress, an appellate court considers the correctness of a trial court’s' ruling on a pre-trial motion to suppress by taking into account “the totality of the evidence presented at the motion to suppress hearing and the trial.” State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449, 455 (La.1983). 2015To verify that that was a crime would entail stopping those two people in the car, finding something on them, and then that then justifies everything else, but there is no justification here. \|3“In reviewing the trial court’s ruling on defendant’s motion to suppress, this Court looks to the totality of the evidence presented at the motion to suppress hearing....” State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449, 455 (La.1983).	10	11
State v. Franklingreen la · 1977 · cited in 9 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1978–1984 2 sentences 1981In State v. Franklin, 353 So.2d 1315 (La. 1977), however, we addressed the issue of who bears the burden of proof at a suppression hearing involving a warrantless search and held: "[O]nce the defendant makes the initial showing at a motion to suppress hearing that a warrantless search occurred, the burden of proof shifts to the State to affirmatively show that the search is justified under one of the narrow exceptions to the rule requiring a search warrant." 353 So.2d at 1318-19 . 1981In State v. Franklin, 353 So.2d 1315 (La. 1977), however, we addressed the issue of who bears the burden of proof at a suppression hearing involving a warrantless search and held: "[O]nce the defendant makes the initial showing at a motion to suppress hearing that a warrantless search occurred, the burden of proof shifts to the State to affirmatively show that the search is justified under one of the narrow exceptions to the rule requiring a search warrant." 353 So.2d at 1318-19 .	3	9
State v. Westgreen la · 1982 · cited in 4 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1983–2017 2 sentences 2017See State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449, 455 (La. 1983) (citing State v. West, 408 So.2d 1302, 1307 (La. 1982)). 2017See State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449, 455 (La. 1983) (citing State v. West, 408 So.2d 1302, 1307 (La. 1982)).	3	4
State v. Montejogreen la · 2010 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2011–2012 2 sentences 2012State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449, 455 (La.1983) (this Court looks to the totality of the evidence presented at a motion to suppress hearing); State v. Montejo, 06-1807, p. 21 (La.5/11/10), 40 So.3d 952, 967 (district court ruling on a motion to suppress will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion). 2011State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449, 455 (La.1983) (“In reviewing the trial court’s ruling on defendant’s motion to suppress, this Court looks to the totality of the evidence presented at the motion to suppress hearing and the trial.”); State v. Montejo, 06-1807, p. 21 (La.5/11/10), 40 So.3d 952, 967 (“The trial court is afforded great discretion in ruling on a motion to suppress, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.”).	2	2
Williams v. Stategreen la · 2007 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2014–2018 2 sentences 2018The court also noted that it was "apparent that defense counsel had prepared his case based upon the assumption that the defendant had been charged under subsection B(3), not B(1) as alleged in the bill of information." Id. at 1148 . 2014The court also noted that it was “apparent that defense counsel had prepared his case based upon the assumption that the defendant had been charged under subsection B(3), not B(1) as alleged in the bill of information.” Id. at 1148.	1	2
Miranda v. Arizonagreen scotus · 1966 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2013 2 sentences 2005See also, State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), 847 So.2d 1196 . [2] Since defendant entered a guilty plea, the following facts are taken from the Arrest Report and Probable Cause Affidavit, the Bill of Information, the Motion to Suppress hearing, and the evidence introduced therein. [3] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] Quoting United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 188 , 104 S.Ct. 2292, 2297 , 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984), which quoted Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 , 92 S.Ct. 1877, 1882 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972) (plurality opinion). [5] State v. Tar 2005See also, State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), 847 So.2d 1196 . [2] Since defendant entered a guilty plea, the following facts are taken from the Arrest Report and Probable Cause Affidavit, the Bill of Information, the Motion to Suppress hearing, and the evidence introduced therein. [3] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] Quoting United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 188 , 104 S.Ct. 2292, 2297 , 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984), which quoted Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 , 92 S.Ct. 1877, 1882 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972) (plurality opinion). [5] State v. Tar	1	2
State v. Josephgreen la · 2003 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2007 2 sentences 2007In State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), 847 So.2d 1196 , the defendant failed to specify which pretrial rulings he desired to reserve on appeal as part of the Crosby plea. 2005See also, State v. Joseph, 03-315 (La.5/16/03), 847 So.2d 1196 . [2] Since defendant entered a guilty plea, the following facts are taken from the Arrest Report and Probable Cause Affidavit, the Bill of Information, the Motion to Suppress hearing, and the evidence introduced therein. [3] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] Quoting United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 188 , 104 S.Ct. 2292, 2297 , 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984), which quoted Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 , 92 S.Ct. 1877, 1882 , 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972) (plurality opinion). [5] State v. Tar	1	2
State v. Jonesgreen lactapp · 1999 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2000–2001 2 sentences 2001R.S. 15:451 provides: “Before what [purports] to be a confession can be introduced in evidence, it must be affirmatively shown that it was free and voluntary, and not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements or promises.” In State v. Jones, 97-2217 (La.App. 4 Cir, 2/24/99), 731 So.2d 389 , writ denied, 99-1702 (La.11/5/99), 751 So.2d 234 , this Court set forth the standard for determining the admissibility of a statement: The State has the burden of proving the admissibility of an inculpatory statement at a motion to suppress hearing. 2000La.R.S. 15:451 provides: "Before what [purports] to be a confession can be introduced in evidence, it must be affirmatively shown that it was free and voluntary, and not made under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements or promises." In State v. Jones, 97-2217, pp. 11-12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/24/99) , 731 So.2d 389, 396 [3] , this court set forth the standard for determining the admissibility of a statement: The State has the burden of proving the admissibility of an inculpatory statement at a motion to suppress hearing.	1	2
State v. Taylorgreen lactapp · 1989 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993State v. Taylor, 553 So.2d 873 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 558 So.2d 600 (La.1990). 1993State v. Taylor, 553 So.2d 873, 880 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 558 So.2d 600 (La.1990).	1	2
State v. Browngreen lactapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024See also State v. Brown, 558 So.2d 1226, 1230 (La.	1	1
State v. Schexnaydergreen lactapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024See State v. Schexnayder, 14-479 (La App. 5 Cir. 12/30/14), 167 So.3d 832 , in which this Court, on appeal, ordered the case remanded for the re-opening of the motion to suppress hearing, finding that the transcript of the hearing indicated that the judge may have relied upon a narrative report by a detective that was not admitted into evidence at the hearing, but was attached to pleadings.	1	1
State v. Prieurred la · 1973 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019At the Prieur hearing, see State v. Prieur, 277 So. 2d 126, 130 ( La. 1973), the State indicated that, while it intended to introduce the fact that the defendant had been shot, it did not intend to introduce evidence that the defendant returned fire.	1	1
State v. Moutongreen la · 1995 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
State v. Raymogreen la · 1982 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
State v. Benjamingreen lactapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
State v. Thomasgreen la · 2001 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	1	1
State v. Carrgreen la · 1988 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	1	1
State v. Marenogreen lactapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	1	1
State v. Thomasgreen lactapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	1	1
State v. Bazilegreen la · 1980 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	1	1
Spencer v. Whitegreen scotus · 1996 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
Gabor v. Frazergreen scotus · 1996 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
Martin v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Californiagreen scotus · 1996 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
Kirby v. Illinoisgreen scotus · 1972 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
State v. Tartgreen la · 1996 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
State v. Hattawaygreen la · 1993 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
State v. Freemangreen lactapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
United States v. Gouveiagreen scotus · 1984 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
State v. Hearoldgreen la · 1992 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004	1	1
Novak v. Rathnamgreen ill · 1985 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (50)

Case	Cited	Years
State ex rel. Wilson v. State neutral la · 2012 2 sentences 2022Id. 2020Id.	5	2014–2022
State v. Mollette neutral lactapp · 2008 2 sentences 2014Mollette, 2 So.3d at 467 . 2011State v. Mollette, 08-138, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/08), 2 So.3d 461, 467 , unit denied, 09-155 (La.10/16/09), 19 So.3d 472 (emphasis added).	4	2010–2014
State v. Hohn green lactapp · 1996 2 sentences 2003La.C.Cr.P. art. 703(D); State v. Hohn, 95-2612, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/19/96), 668 So.2d 454, 456 . 2002La.C.Cr.P. art. 703(D); State v. Hohn, 95-2612, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/19/96), 668 So.2d 454, 456 .	4	2000–2003
State v. Favors green lactapp · 2010 2 sentences 2012Favors , 09-1034 at 9, 43 So.3d at 259 . 2011Favors , 09-1034 at 9, 43 So.3d at 259 .	3	2011–2012
State v. Mollette neutral la · 2009 2 sentences 2011Favors , 09-1034 at 9, 43 So.3d at 259 (citing State v. Mollette, 08-138 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/08) , 2 So.3d 461, 467 , writ denied, 09-155 (La.10/16/09), 19 So.3d 472 ). 2011State v. Mollette, 08-138, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/08), 2 So.3d 461, 467 , unit denied, 09-155 (La.10/16/09), 19 So.3d 472 (emphasis added).	3	2010–2011
State v. James neutral lactapp · 2000 2 sentences 2001State v. James, 99-0423, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/16/00), 755 So.2d 995, 1002 . [2] "An accused is entitled to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, ..." [3] "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him ..." 2001State v. James, 99-0423, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/16/00), 755 So.2d 995, 1002 . .	3	2000–2001
State v. Archie green lactapp · 1984 2 sentences 2001In State v. Archie, 462 So.2d 248 (La.App. 4 Cir.1984), portions of the motion to suppress hearing transcript had been lost. 1999In State v. Archie, 462 So.2d 248 (La.App. 4th Cir.1984), the appeal record did not contain portions of the motion to suppress hearing transcript because it had been lost.	2	1999–2001
State v. Green green la · 1995 2 sentences 2000State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.05/22/95), 655 So.2d 272 . 2000State v. Fisher, supra ; State v. Green, 94-0887 (La.5/22/95), 655 So.2d 272 .	2	2000–2000
State v. Morgan green la · 1990 2 sentences 1993State v. Taylor, 553 So.2d 873 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 558 So.2d 600 (La.1990). 1993State v. Taylor, 553 So.2d 873, 880 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 558 So.2d 600 (La.1990).	2	1993–1993
State v. Crosby green la · 1976 2 sentences 1992Thereafter, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to attempted possession of crack cocaine pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), and reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress pursuant to State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976). 1992Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to withdraw former guilty plea and enter a plea of guilty pursuant to State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La. 1976), specifically reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress and his motion to reopen the motion to suppress hearing.	2	1992–1992
State v. Garnier green la · 1972 2 sentences 1988See La.C.Cr.P. art. 703; State v. Garnier, 261 La. 802 , 261 So.2d 221 (1972). 1988See La.C.Cr.P. art. 703; State v. Garnier, 261 La. 802 , 261 So.2d 221 (1972).	2	1987–1988
State v. Lehnen green la · 1981 2 sentences 1988See State v. Morris, supra ; State v. Lehnen, supra . 1984Following the rule established in State v. Rey, supra , and expanded in State v. Lehnen, supra , we will rectify misstatements *1204 or omissions in the search warrant by correcting errors or supplying the missing information and then retest the affidavit for the presence of probable cause.	2	1984–1988
State v. Benoit green la · 1983 2 sentences 1987Wilms, supra ; State v. Benoit, 440 So.2d 129 (La.1983); Burkhalter, supra . 1139 In the instant case, Detective Danny Le-Blanc (LeBlanc) testified at the Motion to Suppress hearing that he and Detective Mike Guillory (Guillory) interviewed Gordon at the New Orleans House of Detention. 1984*State v. Benoit, supra; State v. Lindsey, supra. The testimony adduced at the motion to suppress hearing indicated the following facts which led the police to contact the defendant.	2	1984–1987
State v. Bell green lactapp · 2015 1 sentence 2021C Bell, 169 So. 3d at 421 .	1	2021–2021
Terry v. Ohio green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 2019Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968); La. 2019Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968); La.	1	2019–2019
State v. Louis green lactapp · 2005 1 sentence 2018App. 5 Cir. 7/26/05), 910 So.2d 464 , 467 ("Contrary to defendant's assertions, there is no new evidence to warrant reconsideration as the transcript from the motion to suppress hearing dated October 15, 2003 was attached to the state's writ application and considered by this Court prior to its decision").	1	2018–2018
State v. Hernandez green la · 1981 1 sentence 2018In State v. Hernandez , 408 So.2d 911 , 914 (La. 1981), cert. denied , 459 U.S. 840 , 103 S.Ct. 90 , 74 L.Ed.2d 83 (1982), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that it has not, for purposes of the "automobile" exception of the warrant requirement, distinguished between a vehicle stopped while in motion and then searched and a vehicle parked in a public place accessible to persons who might either move it or remove evidence from the vehicle.	1	2018–2018
Priddy v. Priddy green scotus · 1982 1 sentence 2018In State v. Hernandez , 408 So.2d 911 , 914 (La. 1981), cert. denied , 459 U.S. 840 , 103 S.Ct. 90 , 74 L.Ed.2d 83 (1982), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that it has not, for purposes of the "automobile" exception of the warrant requirement, distinguished between a vehicle stopped while in motion and then searched and a vehicle parked in a public place accessible to persons who might either move it or remove evidence from the vehicle.	1	2018–2018
Jones v. City of St. Louis green scotus · 1982	1	2018–2018
State v. Sam neutral lactapp · 2012	1	2016–2016
State v. Brooks green la · 1995	1	2015–2015
Smith v. Robbins green scotus · 2000	1	2015–2015
Georgia v. Randolph green scotus · 2006	1	2014–2014
State v. Wells green la · 2010	1	2014–2014
State v. Thompson green la · 2012	1	2014–2014
Texas v. Brown green scotus · 1983	1	2012–2012
State v. Welch green la · 2011	1	2011–2011
State v. Floyd green la · 2007	1	2009–2009
State v. Micelotti neutral lactapp · 2008	1	2009–2009
State v. Batiste green lactapp · 2007	1	2008–2008
State v. Howard green la · 1999	1	2008–2008
STATE EX REL. BRIDGEWATER v. State green la · 2008	1	2008–2008
State v. Caples neutral lactapp · 2006	1	2007–2007
State v. Polk green lactapp · 2006	1	2006–2006
Illinois v. Caballes green scotus · 2005	1	2005–2005
State v. Brown green lactapp · 2001	1	2005–2005
State v. Brown green la · 2003	1	2005–2005
State v. Carter green la · 1995	1	2005–2005
State v. Sylvester neutral lactapp · 2002	1	2003–2003
State v. Banks green lactapp · 2001	1	2002–2002

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 40:967 (30) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 40:966 (22) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:451 (21) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:529.1 (17) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:438 (14) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:95.1 (13) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:64 (11) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:30.1 (10) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:30 (8) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 1 (7) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 19 (7) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:95 (6)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 423 (1972–2026) GA 154 (1973–2026) LA 113 (1973–2024) OH 96 (1971–2026) IL 58 (1971–2026) MA 43 (1979–2026) TN 40 (1978–2025) IN 33 (1975–2025) FL 25 (1960–2017) OR 19 (1975–2025) MO 19 (1976–2019) CA 18 (1990–2026) HI 12 (1978–2024) NJ 11 (1976–2019) VA 10 (2008–2024) NC 8 (2019–2025) ID 7 (1986–2025) OK 6 (1971–2012) IA 6 (2014–2026) UT 6 (1990–2026) NM 6 (1980–2023) NE 6 (1994–2023) WY 5 (1995–2025) AZ 4 (1977–2016) ND 4 (2001–2020) RI 4 (1987–2024) ME 3 (2009–2022) DE 3 (2020–2026) WI 3 (1984–2015) KS 3 (1995–2017) PA 3 (2021–2026) CT 3 (2019–2025) AL 2 (1977–1987) AR 2 (2005–2015) WA 2 (2010–2010) MS 2 (2000–2002)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check