13 So. 3d 1168 - State v. Bolden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 5 of the Louisiana Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable per se unless justified by a specific exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Manson , 01-159 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/27/01) , 791 So.2d 749 , 757, cert. denied , 01-2269 (La. 9/20/02), 825 So.2d 1156 . However, a person on parole or probation has a reduced expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and under Article I, § 5 of the Louisiana Constitution. State v. Young , 07-988 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/19/08) , 988 So.2d 759 , 762. An individual on parole or probation does not have the same freedom from governmental intrusion into his affairs as does the average citizen. A probationer must necessarily have a reduced expectation of privacy, which allows for reasonable warrantless searches of his person and residence by his probation officer, even though less than probable cause may be shown. This reduced expectation of privacy derives from the probationer's conviction and his agreement to allow a probation officer to investigate his activities in order to confirm that he is abiding by the provisions of his probation. State v. Saulsby , 04-880 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/28/04) , 892 So.2d 655 , 657-658. A probation officer may not use his authority as a subterfuge to help another police agency that desires to conduct a search, but lacks probable cause. Stat”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 239 So. 3d 960 - State v. Warren

2. “Under the plain view doctrine, if police officers are lawfully in a position from which they view an object that has an incriminating nature which is immediately apparent, and if the officers have a lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without a warrant. State v. Manson, [ 01-159 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/27/01) ,] 791 So.2d [749,] 757. Because the parole officer had the authority to enter defendant’s residence due to his status as a parolee, the parole officer had the right to seize the gun he saw in plain view. Since the parole officer then had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, he was authorized to conduct a thorough search of the apartment. State v. Saulsby, [ 04-880 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/28/04) ,] 892 So.2d [655,] 658.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 107 So. 3d 883 - State v. Edwards