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.
8 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Minnesota v. Dickersongreen2 sentences2006The panel first considered whether the contraband was discovered pursuant to a permissible frisk of the outer clothing, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), or the plain feel exception, Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993), and held these exceptions did not apply. 2006The panel first considered whether the contraband was discovered pursuant to a permissible frisk of the outer clothing, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), or the plain feel exception, Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993), and held these exceptions did not apply. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Stevensgreen1 sentence2014See also, State v. Stevens, 95-501 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/26/96) , 672 So.2d 986 (where the seizure of drugs in a matchbox detected during a lawful pat-down was upheld after the officer testified that her prior experience indicated that most street-level crack dealers carried their drugs in a matchbox.) In light of the jurisprudence and the circumstances in this case, we find that the Officer Aranda had probable cause to seize the heroin, under the plain feel exception, once he felt, in his experience and observations, what he recognized to be contraband under the defendant’s shorts. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2006The panel first considered whether the contraband was discovered pursuant to a permissible frisk of the outer clothing, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), or the plain feel exception, Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993), and held these exceptions did not apply. 2006The panel first considered whether the contraband was discovered pursuant to a permissible frisk of the outer clothing, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), or the plain feel exception, Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993), and held these exceptions did not apply. | 2 | 2001–2006 |
State v. Short
neutral
2 sentences1996The seizure of the cocaine clearly falls within the plain feel exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. at 948 . 1996The seizure of the cocaine clearly falls within the plain feel exception to the warrant requirement." Id. at 948 . | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Harris v. United States
green
1 sentence2025See Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375-76 (1993) (“If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect’s privacy beyond 6 that already authorized by the officer’s search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view context.”); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (footnote omitted) (discussing plain-view exception); Harris v. United St | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
green
1 sentence2025See Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375-76 (1993) (“If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect’s privacy beyond 6 that already authorized by the officer’s search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view context.”); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (footnote omitted) (discussing plain-view exception); Harris v. United St | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Boyer
green
1 sentence2014Boyer, 07-476, p. 24, 967 So.2d at 473 (citing Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 376-77 , 113 S.Ct. at 2137-38 ). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Hughes
green
1 sentence2001In State v. Hughes, 99-2554 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/31/00) , 765 So.2d 423 , police observed the defendant with two other males standing in front of a grocery store. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Littles
neutral
1 sentence2001In State v. Littles, 98-2517 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/15/99) , 742 So.2d 735 , police officers on patrol in a known drug area observed the defendant engaged in an apparent drug transaction, and stopped him. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Lavigne
green
1 sentence1996In State v. Lavigne, 95-KA-0204 (La.App. 4th Cir. 5/22/96), 675 So.2d 771 , the police officer testified at trial that during the search, he felt an object in the defendant’s right front pants pocket which, from prior experience, he suspected to be what is commonly called a “crack pipe.” As in Johnson , we found that his testimony indicated that the officer was aware, without further investigation, that the object in the defendant’s pants pocket was a crack pipe. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.