10 So. 3d 274 - State v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Tips provided to police by confidential informants can supply sufficient reasonable suspicion to conduct an investiga tive stop under certain circumstances. The tip must accurately predict the offender’s conduct in sufficient detail to support a finding that the informant had reliable information regarding the illegal activity. See, e.g., Id. The tip must also be corroborated by the police. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 , 110 S.Ct. 2412 , 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990). If an informer’s tip accurately predicts the offender’s future behavior it gains an additional modicum of reliability. Id. Predictive ability is not always necessary; a non-predictive tip coupled with police corroboration or independent police observation of suspicious activity can provide the police with the requisite reasonable suspicion to detain a suspect. See, e.g., State v. Francois, 04-1147, p. 7 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/29/05), 900 So.2d 1005, 1010 . An informant’s past record for accuracy and reliability is another factor taken into account when determining the |2fireliability of the tip in question. State v. Austin, 04-993 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/1/05) , 900 So.2d 867, 879 , writ denied, 05-0830 (La.11/28/05), 916 So.2d 143 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 222 So. 3d 969 - State v. Williams · 79 So. 3d 1220 - State v. Allen

2. “The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. Similarly, the Louisiana Constitution provides that “[e]very person shall be secure in his person, property, communications, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures, or invasions of privacy.” LA. CONST, art. 1, § 5. As a general rule, searches and seizures must be conducted pursuant to a validly executed search warrant or arrest warrant. Warrantless searches and seizures are considered to be per se unreasonable unless they can be justified by one of the Fourth Amendment’s warrant exceptions. See, e.g., State v. Freeman, 97-1115 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/29/98) , 727 So.2d 630, 634 . The state has the burden of showing that one of the exceptions applies. See, e.g., State v. McHugh, 92-1852 (La.1/6/94), 630 So.2d 1259, 1262 . We review a trial court[’]s ruling on a motion to suppress under the manifest error standard. State v. Williams, OS-272, p. 3 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/16/08), 3 So.3d 526 ; State v. Higgins, 03-1980, p. 20-21 (La.4/1/05), 898 So.2d 1219, 1233 , cert, denied, 546 U.S. 883 , 126 S.Ct. 182 , 163 L.Ed.2d 187 (2005).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 21 So. 3d 437 - State v. Harris