State v. Gipson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “11?The right of every person to be secure in his person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 5 of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution. It is well settled that a search and seizure conducted without a warrant issued on probable cause is per se unreasonable unless the warrantless search and seizure can be justified by one of the narrowly drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement. State v. Thompson, 2002-0333 (La.4/9/03), 842 So.2d 330 ; State v. Ledford, 40,318 (La.App.2d Cir.10/28/05), 914 So.2d 1168 ; State v. O’Neal, 44,067 (La.App.2d Cir.4/8/09), 7 So.3d 182 , writ denied, 2009-1243 (La.2/12/10), 27 So.3d 841 . The purpose of limiting warrantless searches to certain recognized exceptions is to preserve the constitutional safeguards provided by a warrant, while accommodating the necessity of war-rantless searches under special circumstances. State v. O’Neal, supra. When the constitutionality of a warrant-less search or seizure is placed at issue by a motion to suppress the evidence, the state bears the burden of proving that the search and seizure were justified pursuant to one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. La. C. Cr. P. art. 703(D); State v. O’Neal, supra. The plain view doctrine is an exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Young, 39,546 (La.App.2d Cir.3/2/05), 895 So.2d 753 ; State v. O’Neal, supra. The plain view doctrine renders”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bass