14 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sandersgreen2 sentences2024It “does not,” however, “necessarily enjoy the same measure of protection accorded the home by the Fourth Amendment ... because of ‘an almost implicit understanding and custom in this country that, in the absence of signs or warning, a residence may be approached and the occupants summoned to the door by knocking.’” Id. (quoting State v. Sanders, 374 So.2d 1186, 1189 (La. 1979)). 12 The hearing testimony established that the odor of marijuana was emanating from defendant’s residence when he opened the door. 2022It “does not,” however, “necessarily enjoy the same measure of protection accorded the home by the Fourth Amendment . . . because of ‘an almost implicit understanding and custom in this country that, in the absence of signs or warning, a 8 residence may be approached and the occupants summoned to the door by knocking.’” Id. (quoting State v. Sanders, 374 So.2d 1186, 1189 (La. 1979)). “[W]hile a warrant is generally required to search a home or its curtilage, ‘the exigencies of the situation’ can ‘make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasona | 8 | 9 |
State v. Dearygreen2 sentences2013See La.R.S. 14:63(B) (“No person shall enter upon immovable property owned by another without express, legal, or implied authorization.”); compare State v. Deary, 99-0627, p. 1 (La.1/28/00), 753 So.2d 200, 201 (noting “an almost implicit understanding and custom in this country that, in the absence of signs or warning, a residence may be approached and the occupants summoned to the door by knocking.”) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2012A front porch does not necessarily enjoy the same measure of Fourth Amendment protection that a home does, however, because of “an almost implicit understanding and custom in this country that, in the absence of signs or warning, a residence may be approached and the occupants summoned to the door by knocking.” Deary at p. 1 , 753 So.2d at 201 (citing State v. Sanders, 374 So.2d 1186, 1189 (La.1979)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Haywoodgreen1 sentence2007See State v. Sanders, 374 So.2d 1186, 1189 (La.1979) (Knocking at the door violated no right of privacy; that single action by police did not infringe on defendant's "right to be let alone." In this country, in the absence of signs or warning, customarily a residence may be approached and the occupants summoned to the door by knocking.) See also, State v. Haywood, 00-1584, p. 7 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/28/01), 783 So.2d 568, 575-576 (An occupant of a motel room is free to refuse to open the door or to slam it shut once opened; the occupant's freedom of movement is not infringed upon by police merely | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brisban
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2009Id. | 4 | 2005–2009 |
Oliver v. United States
green
2 sentences2024It “does not,” however, “necessarily enjoy the same measure of protection accorded the home by the Fourth Amendment ... because of ‘an almost implicit understanding and custom in this country that, in the absence of signs or warning, a residence may be approached and the occupants summoned to the door by knocking.’” Id. (quoting State v. Sanders, 374 So.2d 1186, 1189 (La. 1979)). 12 The hearing testimony established that the odor of marijuana was emanating from defendant’s residence when he opened the door. 2022It “does not,” however, “necessarily enjoy the same measure of protection accorded the home by the Fourth Amendment . . . because of ‘an almost implicit understanding and custom in this country that, in the absence of signs or warning, a 8 residence may be approached and the occupants summoned to the door by knocking.’” Id. (quoting State v. Sanders, 374 So.2d 1186, 1189 (La. 1979)). “[W]hile a warrant is generally required to search a home or its curtilage, ‘the exigencies of the situation’ can ‘make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasona | 2 | 2022–2024 |
State v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2012In Deary , this court reaffirmed its prior holding in State v. Dixon, 391 So.2d 836 (La.1980), that “the police have the same right as other members of the public to approach the doorway of a home and see what was exposed by the owner to the view of the general populace.” Deary at p. 2 , 753 So.2d at 201 (internal quotation omitted). 2002In Deary , this court reaffirmed its prior holding in State v. Dixon, 391 So.2d 836 (La.1980), that "the police have the same right as other members of the public to approach the doorway of a home and see what was exposed by the owner to the view of the general populace." Deary at p. 2 , 753 So.2d at 201 (internal quotation omitted). | 2 | 2002–2012 |
State v. Warren
green
1 sentence2022“Exigent circumstances justify a warrantless entry, search, or seizure when ‘police officers, acting on probable cause and in good faith, reasonably believe from the totality of the circumstances that” either “evidence or contraband will imminently be destroyed” or that “the nature of the crime or character of the suspect(s) pose a risk of danger to the arresting officers or third persons.” State v. Warren, 05-2248, pp. 11-12 (La. 2/22/07), 949 So.2d 1215, 1225 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Lee
green
1 sentence2022It “does not,” however, “necessarily enjoy the same measure of protection accorded the home by the Fourth Amendment . . . because of ‘an almost implicit understanding and custom in this country that, in the absence of signs or warning, a 8 residence may be approached and the occupants summoned to the door by knocking.’” Id. (quoting State v. Sanders, 374 So.2d 1186, 1189 (La. 1979)). “[W]hile a warrant is generally required to search a home or its curtilage, ‘the exigencies of the situation’ can ‘make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasona | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Mathes v. Faucheux
green
1 sentence2022It “does not,” however, “necessarily enjoy the same measure of protection accorded the home by the Fourth Amendment . . . because of ‘an almost implicit understanding and custom in this country that, in the absence of signs or warning, a 8 residence may be approached and the occupants summoned to the door by knocking.’” Id. (quoting State v. Sanders, 374 So.2d 1186, 1189 (La. 1979)). “[W]hile a warrant is generally required to search a home or its curtilage, ‘the exigencies of the situation’ can ‘make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasona | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.